Supreme Court of the United States · 2025-05-22
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; jury convictions on three wire fraud counts and a 1349 conspiracy (disadvantaged-business pass-through on two PennDOT painting contracts); judgment of acquittal denied, affirmed by CA3; certiorari on whether fraudulent inducement without intended net economic loss is wire fraud; result: claimant-won; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsNo ruling on the intent element: whether these defendants acted with intent to defraud was not separately contested, and the Court's no-net-economic-loss rule is a construction of the money-or-property requirement (see the rule-announced `property` block), not a holding about mens rea. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 | Material deception | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded CAVEAT: uncontested point; the Court made no determination of materiality on these facts and left the governing standard open. Materiality of these misrepresentations was not contested, so the element is met only by concession. The governing standard (traditional reasonable-person/known-importance test vs. the Government's essence-of-the-bargain test) is expressly left open; the Court stresses that materiality, not economic loss or "uniqueness", is what limits the fraudulent-inducement theory. | uncontested/contract-condition-labelled-material-breach | Failing to comply with this requirement would consti- tute “a material breach” and could “result in [contract] termi- nation.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [13706:13832] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.For now, it is enough to reiterate “that materiality of falsehood is an element of ”— and thus a limit on—the federal fraud statutes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [42072:42205] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.We need not settle the debate here, however, because Alpha and Kousisis have not contested that their misrepresentations were material.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [41936:42071] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a. |
| /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 | Traditional money or property as an object | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; theory: fraudulent inducement: contract payments obtained although the victim received work of full economic value; subject: theory=fraudulent inducement: contract payments obtained although the victim received work of full economic value Money paid under the contracts was the object of the scheme even though the painting was done to the agency's satisfaction; frustrating the disadvantaged-business rule was only a downstream byproduct, so the Kelly/Cleveland regulatory-power limit and the rejected right-to-control theory (Ciminelli) are not engaged. The no-net-economic-loss rule the Court applies here is recorded in the next `property` block. | money-as-object/public-contract-payments-for-fully-performed-work | PennDOT, satisfed with Alpha's paint and repair work, paid it accordingly. By the time the last coat of paint had dried, Alpha had turned a gross proft of over $20 mil- lion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [15400:15574] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Their goal? To “obtai[n] money” (tens of millions of dollars) from Penn- DOT.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [22652:22729] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Alpha and Kousisis moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that because their paintwork met PennDOT's expectations, PennDOT had received the full economic beneft of its bargain.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [15918:16098] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Nothing suggests that they concocted their scheme with the goal of thwarting Penn- DOT's disadvantaged-business initiative.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [44636:44759] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Obtaining the victim's money or property must have been the “aim,” not an “incidental byproduct,” of the defendant's fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [20152:20275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.In short, the wire fraud statute is agnostic about economic loss. The statute does not so much as mention loss, let alone require it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [23857:23990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.But if, as here, the fraudster seeks to induce the Gov- ernment into a transfer of its money or property, that loss is suffcient to sustain a fraud conviction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [44015:44174] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a. |
| /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 | Traditional money or property as an object | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits theory: rejected requirement: net economic loss to the victim (or a purpose to cause it); subject: theory=rejected requirement: net economic loss to the victim (or a purpose to cause it) The rule of the case, stated as a construction of the money-or-property requirement: when money or property is the object of the scheme, the statute does not require that the victim suffer, or that the defendant seek, a net economic loss. It is a rule about `property`, not a separate mens rea ruling. Kept as its own not-reached / rule-announced block only so that the variant can name the rule; its application to these facts is the satisfied `property` block above. | money-or-property-object/no-net-economic-loss-required | Instead, a defendant violates § 1343 by scheming to “obtain” the victim's “money or property,” regardless of whether he seeks to leave the victim economically worse off.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [23991:24160] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a. |
| /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved A false promise in the bid plus later false certifications of performance; giving equal value in return does not take the plan outside "scheme to defraud / to obtain money by false pretenses". | fraudulent-inducement/false-subcontractor-compliance-promise-to-win-public-contract | Accordingly, as part of the bidding process, Kousisis represented that Alpha would acquire ap- proximately $6.4 million in painting supplies from Markias, Inc., a prequalifed disadvantaged business.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [13848:14046] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.In short, Markias was no more than a paper pusher, funneling checks and invoices to and from Alpha's actual suppliers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [14672:14790] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.As the proj- ects progressed, he falsely reported qualifying payments to Markias.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [15318:15399] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Rather, the theory criminalizes a particular species of fraud: intention- ally lying to induce a victim into a transaction that will cost her money or property.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [48756:48916] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.By using Markias as a pass-through entity, petitioners “devised” a “scheme” to ob- tain contracts through feigned compliance with PennDOT's disadvantaged-business requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [22470:22645] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.A conviction premised on a fraudulent inducement thus com- ports with § 1343.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [24161:24238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Obtaining the victim's money or property must have been the “aim,” not an “incidental byproduct,” of the defendant's fraud.
/us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025
Obtaining the victim's money or property must have been the “aim,” not an “incidental byproduct,” of the defendant's fraud.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [20152:20275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.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).
interpretation
In short, the wire fraud statute is agnostic about economic loss. The statute does not so much as mention loss, let alone require it.
/us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025
In short, the wire fraud statute is agnostic about economic loss. The statute does not so much as mention loss, let alone require it.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [23857:23990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.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).
interpretation
Obtaining the victim's money or property must have been the “aim,” not an “incidental byproduct,” of the defendant's fraud.
/us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025
Obtaining the victim's money or property must have been the “aim,” not an “incidental byproduct,” of the defendant's fraud.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [20152:20275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.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.
interpretation
In short, the wire fraud statute is agnostic about economic loss. The statute does not so much as mention loss, let alone require it.
/us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025
In short, the wire fraud statute is agnostic about economic loss. The statute does not so much as mention loss, let alone require it.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [23857:23990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.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.
interpretation
We need not settle the debate here, however, because Alpha and Kousisis have not contested that their misrepresentations were material.
/us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025
We need not settle the debate here, however, because Alpha and Kousisis have not contested that their misrepresentations were material.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [41936:42071] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Judge-made incorporation of common-law fraud, not an express word in this statute. 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.