United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008-07-08
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; pretrial motion to dismiss Counts 5-10 (honest-services wire fraud, §§ 1343 and 1346) of a sixteen-count indictment for failure to allege the elements and for vagueness; denied; result: claimant-won; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 | Wire transmission for execution of scheme | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; count: Counts 5-10; subject: count=Counts 5-10 CAVEAT: thin authority. The point was uncontested and the treatment is one conclusory sentence with no `held` line of its own: the court notes only that each count alleges a wire in furtherance and says the nature of the wires is immaterial to the motion; nothing about how any wire advanced the scheme is examined. Basis stays [pleaded] rather than [conceded] because a defendant moving to dismiss an indictment concedes no fact; what was undisputed is only the facial adequacy of the allegation. | indictment-tracks-statute/wire-specifics-not-examined | Counts 5-10 each also allege a specific wire communication transmitted or caused to be transmitted by defendant in furtherance of that scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [7725:7867] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3.The specific nature of the five alleged wire communications is not material to the analysis called for by defendant’s motionSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [2509:2633] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3. |
| /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; count: Counts 5-10; theory: § 1346 honest services of a public official: bribery; subject: count=Counts 5-10; theory=§ 1346 honest services of a public official: bribery Facial sufficiency of the indictment only. The defendant's objection that the acts bought were not "official acts" under 18 U.S.C. § 201 is rejected by reference to an earlier opinion in the same case, not analysed here. | public-official-bribery/legislator-paid-to-promote-private-ventures-with-agencies | The Indictment alleges that beginning in or about January 2001, defendant used his office to advance the business interests of various individuals and corporations in return for money and other things of value paid either directly to defendant or via ‘nominee companies,’ ie., companies ostensibly controlled by one of defendant’s family members, but in fact controlled by defendant himself.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [1217:1608] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3.In this case, Counts 5-10 allege that this defendant devised a scheme to deprive others of defendant’s honest services “by knowingly and corruptly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting, and agreeing to receive and accept things of value” — in other words, by soliciting or receiving bribes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [7431:7724] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3.It follows that an indictment will sufficiently charge a violation of the honest services wire fraud statute where it alleges that a defendant devised a scheme to solicit or receive bribes and transmitted a wire communication in furtherance of that scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [7174:7430] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3.Accordingly, Counts 5-10 sufficiently allege a violation of the honest services wire fraud statute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [7868:7967] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3. |
| /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; count: Counts 5-10; theory: § 1346 honest services of a public official: undisclosed conflict of interest; subject: count=Counts 5-10; theory=§ 1346 honest services of a public official: undisclosed conflict of interest CAVEAT: dated authority. This 2008 conflict-of-interest (non-disclosure) theory is inconsistent with the law file's own boundary rule ("An honest services fraud scheme covers only bribery or kickbacks"), which reflects later authority; do not read this block as a current statement of the reach of § 1346. The counts were framed as bribery; the court lets the prosecution also proceed on a non-disclosure theory because an indictment need not enumerate every theory, and reads "passing on" to reach matters the official influences without deciding. | undisclosed-conflict-of-interest/official-acts-beyond-own-decision-making-authority | The Indictment further alleges that defendant failed to disclose the existence of his interest when performing the official acts for which he had solicited and received bribes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [9786:9962] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3.As defendant notes, the honest services fraud allegations contained in Counts 5-10, and referenced in Counts 1, 2, and 16, explicitly frame the alleged deprivation of honest services as a consequence of defendant’s alleged solicitation and receipt of bribes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [10807:11065] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3.It follows that an indictment will sufficiently charge a violation of the honest services wire fraud statute where it alleges that the defendant intentionally failed to disclose the existence of a direct interest in a matter on which he is “passing.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [9353:9603] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3.Mandel is more accurately read to recognize honest services fraud predicated on a conflict of interest with regard to an official’s official acts, including those affecting decisions that may be beyond the official’s own decision-making authority.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [13218:13465] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3.Counts 5-10 adequately allege the statutory elements of an honest services fraud offense, and the government is entitled to pursue a theory of the offense at trial that is predicated on alleged conflicts of interest in defendant’s performance of official duties.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [11833:12095] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3. |
| /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 | Interstate or foreign transmission | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsThe only scheme alleged is the § 1346 honest-services scheme recorded above; no property-fraud scheme is charged in these counts. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |