Source: cases/18usc1343/f3d-931-1245-us-v-feldman.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_931/1245_01/index.html
Based on Simchuk's testimony, the jury rationally could have found that Feldman knowingly participated in a scheme to charge customers for drinks they did not order, to lie to customers about the number and kind of drinks they were being charged for, and to lie to credit-card companies about the drinks patrons had ordered.
Simchuk testified about a scheme to commit what qualifies as fraud under any interpretation of the wire-fraud statute, and he testified that Feldman knowingly participated in that scheme.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/931/1245-01 name United States v. Feldman cite 931 F.3d 1245 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit date 2019-07-30 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_931/1245_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl sha1=60a34cfb1148f14b0e609be0b2d06d7ed3466375 chars=60000 opinion op : majority by Pryor @0..53979 controlling opinion conc : concurrence by Pryor @53980..60000 ? opinion: IR text is capped at 60000 chars; the concurrence (critique of Takhalov's reading of "scheme to defraud") is truncated and nothing is quoted from it party p1 : Isaac Feldman count c1 : conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349; object § 1343), Miami Beach "B-girl" nightclubs, retrial law 18usc1343 role applied posture criminal appeal after retrial; jury conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349) and money-laundering conspiracy; sufficiency upheld, constructive-amendment, double-jeopardy, due-process and sentencing challenges rejected; affirmed result claimant-won ? role: the conviction is for § 1349 conspiracy; § 1343 is the object offence. The court applies the § 1343 scheme-to-defraud requirement to the trial evidence, so the blocks are recorded as applied; no completed wire-fraud count was before the court (first jury acquitted on the substantive counts) element scheme : satisfied [proved] decider jury review affirmed party p1 count c1 route _whole pattern nightclub charges patrons' credit cards for drinks not ordered and runs cards to the limit; lies about number and kind of drinks fact @29680..30063 [supports] | Simchuk described a particular ruse in which bartenders would tell patrons that they were receiving two bottles of champagne for the price of one but charge them for both after they accepted the "free" bottle, and although he was describing his clubs in Latvia when he testified about this trick, he testified immediately afterward that he brought "exactly the same system" to Miami. fact @30064..30372 [supports] | Simchuk also testified that the "bartender's job was [to] open up the tab and clean up the credit card." He used the phrase "clean up the credit card" more than once, and, when the government asked him what it meant, he replied, "That's what I mean, run the credit card until it stopped. ... Just charge it." fact @30672..30827 [supports] | In Simchuk's words, once a customer ordered even a single drink, "[b]artender went to bar, open up the tab, let the guy sign, that's it, credit card gone." held @29068..29392 | Based on Simchuk's testimony, the jury rationally could have found that Feldman knowingly participated in a scheme to charge customers for drinks they did not order, to lie to customers about the number and kind of drinks they were being charged for, and to lie to credit-card companies about the drinks patrons had ordered. gloss Defendant argued the tactics within his agreement (B-girls luring patrons, deflecting price questions) were not fraud under Takhalov; the court did not sort the tactics, holding that charging for unordered drinks is fraud "under any interpretation of the wire-fraud statute". ? route: the dispute is which deceptions go to the nature of the bargain (Takhalov) and so count as a scheme to defraud; no route for that sub-question, and the court avoided deciding it element intent : satisfied [proved] decider jury review affirmed party p1 count c1 route inferred-from-conduct pattern investor-manager's awareness of routine overcharging, shown by cooperating ringleader's testimony rule @27471..27875 [quoted] | "To prove a conspiracy to commit wire fraud, the government need not demonstrate an agreement specifically to use the interstate wires to further the scheme to defraud; it is enough to prove ... that the use of the interstate wires in furtherance of the scheme was reasonably foreseeable," provided the government "prove[s] that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to ... a scheme to defraud." fact @29393..29679 [supports] | Simchuk repeatedly testified that once a patron made the mistake of providing his credit card to a bartender, it would "be charged for bottles he didn't order," that "this happen[ed] at Stars Lounge," and that Feldman "was aware of this" and knew "exactly what[ ] [was] going on there." held @30828..31015 | Simchuk testified about a scheme to commit what qualifies as fraud under any interpretation of the wire-fraud statute, and he testified that Feldman knowingly participated in that scheme. gloss Knowing participation rested on the cooperating witness's testimony that Feldman knew of the unordered-bottle charges; the jury was entitled to credit it. ? other: what is decided is knowing and voluntary agreement to the scheme (the § 1349 mens rea), mapped to the § 1343 intent element; the court does not separately discuss "intent to defraud"