18 U.S.C. § 1341

Elements

  1. Scheme or artifice to defraud

    scheme or artifice to defraud

    A fraudulent plan, including a deliberately false promise, is required; an unsuccessful scheme can qualify. Do not convert a mere breach of contract into fraudulent intent.

  2. Traditional money or property as an object

    money or property

    Judicial construction of the statutory property/object requirement: the property target must be an object of the scheme, not merely an incidental expense of exercising regulatory power. Traditional intangible property can qualify; intangible regulatory interests and a free-standing right to control economic decisions cannot. Kousisis preserves Ciminelli and Kelly while rejecting a net-economic-loss requirement. Its holding applies to the identical mail-fraud language (605 U.S. 114, 121 n.2).

  3. Material deception

    false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises

    Judge-made incorporation of common-law fraud, not an express word in this statute. Petlechkov supplies the Sixth Circuit's ordinary-prudence formulation, not a uniform national definition. Kousisis leaves unresolved the parties' competing formulations of the materiality standard; it does not adopt an essence-of-the-bargain test as an additional universal element.

  4. Knowing participation with intent to defraud

    having devised or intending to devise

    Judicial construction of the scheme language requires fraudulent intent, distinct from negligence or contract breach. A deliberate material deception aimed at obtaining the victim's property suffices without intent to leave the victim economically worse off. Earlier intent-to-harm formulations must be read subject to Kousisis.

  5. Statutory mailing or carrier act

    places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter

    Alternative statutory acts are placing, depositing/causing deposit, taking/receiving, or knowingly causing delivery; they are not cumulative requirements. USPS use need not itself cross a state line; the alternative private/commercial carrier must meet the statutory interstate-carrier description. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1228–1229 (9th Cir. 1996), applies Pereira's construction of causation: personal mailing or specific intent to use the mails is unnecessary where ordinary-course use is known or reasonably foreseeable. The causation inquiry is distinct from whether the mailing executes the scheme; mere foreseeability of a mailing does not establish furtherance. Hubbard's conspiracy posture does not import agreement or overt-act elements here.

  6. Mailing for execution of the scheme

    for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do

    Evaluate the mailing against the actual scope and completion of the scheme. Bridge, 553 U.S. 639, 647 (2008), states the substantive mail-fraud nexus while deciding a civil RICO case; its separate RICO injury requirements do not become mail-fraud elements. Lulling mailings can further an ongoing scheme, but Hagen rejected incidental letters after the charged scheme was complete; Gross found collection mailings within an ongoing kickback scheme at the indictment stage.

  7. Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim

    scheme or artifice to defraud

    Section 1346 supplies the intangible-right theory. Do not combine its different target with the property element above. Its bribery/kickback and fiduciary-duty limits require separate analysis; this boundary node is not a complete honest-services claim.

Cases

  1. United States v. Granberry 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989)

    criminal; two-count mail fraud re-indictment (false denial of a murder conviction on a school bus operator's permit application and job application); defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to allege a scheme to obtain "money or property" under McNally (result: claimant-lost)

  2. Lustiger v. United States 386 F.2d 132 (1967)

    criminal; bench-trial conviction on 17 mail fraud counts (mail-order sale of remote Arizona desert lots as "Lake Mead City"), general finding with no special findings; defendant appeals sufficiency of the evidence of a scheme to defraud, plus suppression, grand jury, First Amendment and evidentiary rulings (result: claimant-won)

  3. United States v. Galloway 664 F.2d 161 (1981)

    criminal; jury verdict of guilty on six mailings (odometer-rollback scheme by a used-car wholesaler), then directed verdict of acquittal by the district court for want of a mailing "for the purpose of executing" the scheme; Government appeals; reversed with directions to reinstate the verdict (one concurrence, one dissent) (result: claimant-won)

  4. United States v. Chung Lo 231 F.3d 471 (2000)

    criminal; real estate broker convicted by jury on eight mail fraud counts (plus conspiracy and related counts) for four fraudulent mortgage-loan transactions; appeal on sufficiency of the evidence of mailing (Count 13) and of furtherance (Counts 4-7, 9-11); four mail fraud convictions reversed, four affirmed (result: mixed)

  5. United States v. Boone 628 F.3d 927 (2010)

    criminal; alderman's housing coordinator convicted by jury of honest-services mail fraud (1341 + 1346, pay-to-play bribes for zoning support letters), acquitted of 666 bribery; appeal challenges only the admission of evidence of other shakedowns (relevance, Rule 403); sufficiency of no element is challenged (result: claimant-won)

  6. United States v. Hird 913 F.3d 332 (2019)

    criminal appeal after conditional guilty pleas to conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud; denial of Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(v) motion to dismiss the indictment (no "money or property" object) reviewed de novo on the indictment's allegations and affirmed. Co-appellants' perjury / false-statement convictions are not section 1341 matters. (result: claimant-won)

  7. United States v. Hagen 917 F.3d 668 (2019)

    criminal appeal from jury convictions (conspiracy, three wire-fraud and four mail-fraud counts); sufficiency of the evidence. Mail-fraud Counts 5, 6 and 7 vacated for insufficient evidence; mail-fraud Count 8 affirmed. (result: mixed)

  8. U.S. v. Petlechkov 922 F.3d 762 (2019)

    criminal appeal from jury convictions on 20 counts of mail fraud; sufficiency challenge limited to materiality rejected for all counts; Counts 6, 13 and 19 affirmed, the other 17 counts dismissed without prejudice for unproved venue; remanded for resentencing (result: mixed)

  9. United States v. Runner 143 F.4th 146 (2025)

    criminal appeal from jury convictions of mail fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy in a mass-mailing psychic-services enterprise; challenges to the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions, all resting on the Second Circuit's intent-to-harm requirement, rejected after Kousisis; sentence affirmed (harmless error) (result: claimant-won)

  10. Cleveland v. United States 531 U.S. 12 (2000)

    criminal; motion to dismiss mail fraud counts denied, jury conviction on two mail fraud counts (1994 and 1995 video poker license renewals) plus RICO and money laundering counts predicated on them, affirmed by CA5; certiorari on whether an unissued state license is "property" of the State (result: claimant-lost)