/us/557/0029-01

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009-06-15

Original case on neochart.com

Case and law context

18 U.S.C. § 1341

Role: comparator; posture: immigration removal (civil); noncitizen previously convicted by a jury of conspiring to commit mail, wire and bank fraud and money laundering; IJ, BIA and CA3 held the conviction an INA "aggravated felony" (fraud or deceit with victim loss over $10,000); certiorari on whether the loss threshold is an element of the prior offense (categorical) or a circumstance-specific fact; 1341 is cited only as a fraud statute with no loss element; result: not-decided; claim:

Instances and excluded annotation blocks

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopeVariantExact source quotations
/us/557/0029-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009Traditional money or property as an objectnot_reached
Excluded from merits counts
comparator / merits

count: prior conviction: conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371) to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering; subject: count=prior conviction: conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371) to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering

The only thing said about 1341: it (like 1343, 1344, 371) has no monetary-loss element, which is why the INA's $10,000 threshold must be read as circumstance-specific rather than categorical. Consistent with the law file's not-required note under `property` (no loss requirement), but this Court decides nothing about any 1341 element; the prior conviction's validity is not in issue. Polarity here only means "the prior offense was a fraud conviction" / "no loss finding was made".
loss-amount/no-statutory-loss-threshold
In 2002 he was indicted for conspiring to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. 18 U. S. C. §§371, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1956(h). A jury found him guilty.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0029-01; Unicode character offsets [1401:1578] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9988303e21a980c9b165f2278e5f0111a2f8d0b4c18840b870fe63b0834163c3.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

But because none of these statutes requires a finding of any particular amount of victim loss, the jury made no finding about the amount of the loss.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0029-01; Unicode character offsets [1579:1728] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9988303e21a980c9b165f2278e5f0111a2f8d0b4c18840b870fe63b0834163c3.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

We have found no widely applicable federal fraud statute that contains á relevant monetary loss threshold.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0029-01; Unicode character offsets [14376:14482] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9988303e21a980c9b165f2278e5f0111a2f8d0b4c18840b870fe63b0834163c3.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations recorded from this case