·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
We therefore hold that a claim predicated on mail or wire fraud involves sufficient domestic conduct when (1) the defendant used domestic mail or wires in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, and (2) the use of the mail or wires was a core component of the scheme to defraud.
We therefore hold that a claim predicated on mail or wire fraud involves sufficient domestic conduct when (1) the defendant used domestic mail or wires in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, and (2) the use of the mail or wires was a core component of the scheme to defraud.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0108-01; Unicode character offsets [33665:33939] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98fe49dd88fa827938a668df226c5f2fdb334de0cbade07511388246b19d7f3c.Identify sufficient domestic conduct when a cross-border scheme is alleged Second Circuit domestic-application holding in a civil RICO case; do not replace ordinary furtherance with this core-component formulation in every domestic prosecution.
interpretation
We therefore hold that a claim predicated on mail or wire fraud involves sufficient domestic conduct when (1) the defendant used domestic mail or wires in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, and (2) the use of the mail or wires was a core component of the scheme to defraud.
We therefore hold that a claim predicated on mail or wire fraud involves sufficient domestic conduct when (1) the defendant used domestic mail or wires in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, and (2) the use of the mail or wires was a core component of the scheme to defraud.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0108-01; Unicode character offsets [33665:33939] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98fe49dd88fa827938a668df226c5f2fdb334de0cbade07511388246b19d7f3c.Identify sufficient domestic conduct when a cross-border scheme is alleged Second Circuit domestic-application holding in a civil RICO case; do not replace ordinary furtherance with this core-component formulation in every domestic prosecution.
interpretation
Count 1 alleges that, through the above-described conduct, all Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a substantive provision of RICO prohibiting individuals from conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Count 1 alleges that, through the above-described conduct, all Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a substantive provision of RICO prohibiting individuals from conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0108-01; Unicode character offsets [10704:10937] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98fe49dd88fa827938a668df226c5f2fdb334de0cbade07511388246b19d7f3c.Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).