United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025-07-09
18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: 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; claim:
Uncertainty
Element intent: route: the contested sub-question is whether fraudulent intent requires a contemplated harm beyond deceiving the victim into paying (Second Circuit intent-to-harm line versus Kousisis); the menu has no route for it. inferred-from-conduct describes only how the court found the evidence sufficient.
Element mails: basis: undisputed on appeal rather than formally conceded; the jury found it and nobody challenged the finding.
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 7
| Case | Scheme or artifice to defraud | Traditional money or property as an object | Material deception | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | Statutory mailing or carrier act | Mailing for execution of the scheme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–7 of 7
| Case | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim |
|---|---|
| United States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Patrice Runner; count: the eight mail fraud counts of conviction (of twelve charged; acquitted on four); subject: party=Patrice Runner; count=the eight mail fraud counts of conviction (of twelve charged; acquitted on four) Sufficiency upheld; the jury instructions on intent were also upheld (any inaccuracy only raised the government's burden). | advertising goods and services the seller never planned to deliver; intent to harm beyond intent to deceive and obtain money not required after Kousisis | In reality, the crystals were purchased from PartyMart (a bulk goods store) and came from China.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [10233:10329] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.But after the customer paid $45 and DMC had received the “precious parchments,” no one at DMC did anything— not Guerin nor any other psychic.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [33786:33927] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.The jury heard that some were written by copywriters, and many were written by Runner himself.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [35525:35619] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.True, PartyMart itself advertised these rings as “Ring of Re with Genuine Sapphire.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [29760:29844] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.A jury can find a defendant acted with fraudulent intent if it finds “there exists a discrepancy between benefits reasonably anticipated because of the misleading representations and the actual benefits which the defendant delivered, or intended to deliver.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [29921:30179] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.But as the Supreme Court clarified in Kousisis, securing a conviction under the mail or wire fraud statutes does not require proof that the scheme intended net economic loss.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [39794:39968] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.The Government introduced sufficient evidence to prove that DMC—led by Runner— advertised goods and services it never planned to deliver, and otherwise intentionally lied to trick customers into paying money.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [28582:28790] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.No more was needed for the jury to find fraudulent intent.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [28791:28849] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc. |
| United States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Statutory mailing or carrier act | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; party: Patrice Runner; count: the eight mail fraud counts of conviction (of twelve charged; acquitted on four); subject: party=Patrice Runner; count=the eight mail fraud counts of conviction (of twelve charged; acquitted on four) Use of the mails was not contested on appeal; the court states it as background. | promotional letters mass-mailed to consumers | So, for about two decades, DMC mailed around one-hundred different promotions to hundreds of thousands of people throughout the United States and Canada.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [5428:5581] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc. |
| United States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Patrice Runner; count: the eight mail fraud counts of conviction (of twelve charged; acquitted on four); subject: party=Patrice Runner; count=the eight mail fraud counts of conviction (of twelve charged; acquitted on four) Kousisis's fraudulent-inducement theory governs: lying about who wrote the letters and what the customer would receive, to induce payment, is a scheme to defraud even if customers got "hope, mystery and entertainment". The same theory sustained the indictment. Materiality was raised only in a Rule 28(j) letter and not addressed. | mass mailings falsely purporting to come from a named psychic, selling personalized psychic services never rendered and "rare" objects that were bulk trinkets | There was no psychic who had read the customers’ letters (or cashed their checks).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [3975:4057] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.Instead of the assertedly rare and valuable objects advertised, customers received mass-produced trinkets.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [6879:6985] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.In fact, all of Runner’s psychic promotions lied about whom the letters were from.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [35125:35207] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.He emphasizes evidence indicating that many of his customers were repeat purchasers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [36244:36328] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.Thus, contrary to cases in which we have said otherwise, “a defendant commits federal fraud whenever he uses a material misstatement to trick a victim into a contract that requires handing over her money or property.” Id. at 1388.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [20634:20864] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.This evidence allowed the jury to conclude that Runner had used these letters to lie “intentionally . . . to induce” potential customers “into a transaction that [would] cost [them] money”—in other words, that he fraudulently induced his customers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [35620:35868] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.As a result, we break no new ground by affirming that Runner’s lies could support convictions under the mail and wire fraud statutes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [36844:36977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
The essential elements of mail and wire fraud are (1) a scheme to defraud, (2) money or property as the object of the scheme, and (3) use of the mails or wires to further the scheme.
United States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
The essential elements of mail and wire fraud are (1) a scheme to defraud, (2) money or property as the object of the scheme, and (3) use of the mails or wires to further the scheme.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [14885:15067] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.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.
interpretation
The Government introduced sufficient evidence to prove that DMC—led by Runner— advertised goods and services it never planned to deliver, and otherwise intentionally lied to trick customers into paying money. No more was needed for the jury to find fraudulent intent.
United States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
The Government introduced sufficient evidence to prove that DMC—led by Runner— advertised goods and services it never planned to deliver, and otherwise intentionally lied to trick customers into paying money. No more was needed for the jury to find fraudulent intent.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [28582:28849] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.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.
interpretation
The essential elements of mail and wire fraud are (1) a scheme to defraud, (2) money or property as the object of the scheme, and (3) use of the mails or wires to further the scheme.
United States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc1343: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
The essential elements of mail and wire fraud are (1) a scheme to defraud, (2) money or property as the object of the scheme, and (3) use of the mails or wires to further the scheme.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [14885:15067] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.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.
interpretation
The Government introduced sufficient evidence to prove that DMC—led by Runner— advertised goods and services it never planned to deliver, and otherwise intentionally lied to trick customers into paying money. No more was needed for the jury to find fraudulent intent.
United States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc1343: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
The Government introduced sufficient evidence to prove that DMC—led by Runner— advertised goods and services it never planned to deliver, and otherwise intentionally lied to trick customers into paying money. No more was needed for the jury to find fraudulent intent.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [28582:28849] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.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.