Source: cases/18usc1343/f3d-932-40-us-v-lebedev.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_932/0040_01/index.html
On this basis, a reasonable jury could conclude that Lebedev deprived the financial institutions of the right to control their assets by misrepresenting potentially valuable economic information.
Accordingly, sufficient evidence supported Lebedev's convictions for wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud.
casedsl 1.2
# author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)
case /f3d/932/0040-01
name United States v. Lebedev
cite 932 F.3d 40 (2019)
court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
date 2019-07-26
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_932/0040_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl sha1=e30347f14bb91b87a767c0bed53afce821337e75 chars=42054
opinion op : majority by Droney @0..42054 controlling
party p1 : Yuri Lebedev
count c1 : wire fraud (Coin.mx Bitcoin exchange disguised as "Collectables Club")
law 18usc1343
role applied
posture criminal appeal from jury conviction of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. ยง 1343), bank fraud and related conspiracy and corrupt-payment counts; Lebedev's sufficiency challenge rejected; affirmed
result claimant-won
misfit The Second Circuit affirmed property satisfaction under its former "right to control" theory (depriving financial institutions of valuable economic information regarding merchant identity). The Supreme Court subsequently repudiated this theory in Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023).
element property : satisfied [proved]
decider jury
review affirmed
party p1
count c1
route right-to-control
pattern card-issuing banks deprived of merchant-identity information relevant to fraud and regulatory risk
fact @9596..10013 [supports] | Heinrich testified that Chase decides whether to process pending credit card transactions based in part on information it receives about the merchant. Chase evaluates regulatory risk, including potential fines for doing business that is illegal, as well as economic risk posed by fraudulent transactions, and considers transactions with money services or money-transmitting businesses to carry a higher risk of fraud.
fact @10014..10167 [supports] | The evidence at trial demonstrated that Coin.mx was a money service business that was both unlawful and carried a higher risk of fraudulent transactions.
rule @8583..8834 [quoted] | "Since a defining feature of most property is the right to control the asset in question, we have recognized that the property interests protected by the ... wire fraud statute[ ] include the interest of a victim in controlling his or her own assets."
held @10434..10629 | On this basis, a reasonable jury could conclude that Lebedev deprived the financial institutions of the right to control their assets by misrepresenting potentially valuable economic information.
gloss Lebedev's only sufficiency argument on the wire-fraud count was that deceiving the institutions about the nature of the business did not harm or risk harming them; rejected under the (pre-Ciminelli) right-to-control doctrine.
element scheme : satisfied [proved]
decider jury
review affirmed
party p1
count c1
route fraudulent-inducement
pattern Bitcoin exchange transactions disguised through a front "collectors' club" so banks and processors would approve them
fact @1527..1708 [supports] | Coin.mx opened bank accounts in the name of "the Collectables Club," which falsely purported to be a private members' association dedicated to collecting and exchanging memorabilia.
fact @2028..2244 [supports] | One of Lebedev's responsibilities was to set up various Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses to make it appear to banks and payment processors that Coin.mx's transactions were legitimate Collectables Club transactions.
fact @10168..10433 [supports] | The evidence also showed that Lebedev's role in Coin.mx's scheme was to disguise Coin.mx's Bitcoin transactions through front entities such as the Collectables Club, so the institutions processing those transactions would be more likely to process and approve them.
held @12412..12550 | Accordingly, sufficient evidence supported Lebedev's convictions for wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud.
gloss The deception itself was not disputed on appeal (the argument was absence of harm); the court recites the evidence of it in upholding sufficiency.
? holding: the scheme element was not separately contested; the only deciding sentence is the omnibus sufficiency conclusion