AND · 18usc1341:intent
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.
Exact element source
having devised or intending to deviseSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1341; Unicode character offsets [36:73] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74b1f92847676f0dece4359c6b22244b8e760d8e46a597847855747fcd542511.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| inferred-from-pattern-of-deception/refund-and-exchange-policy-offered-as-good-faith | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied | |
| inferred-knowledge/open-and-blatant-practice-in-defendants-office | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — rule-announced/procedural | |
| particularity/lapsed-safety-certification-sticker-still-displayed | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/912/0404-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — background/merits | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 3 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — applied/merits; /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — applied/merits; /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — background/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/912/0404-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | not Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: pleaded; theory: displaying a lapsed third-party safety certification (ETL) on machines; Rule 9(b) particularity; subject: theory=displaying a lapsed third-party safety certification (ETL) on machines; Rule 9(b) particularity Dismissed in one conclusory sentence: lapse in 2010 plus stickers still on machines in 2011 does not plead fraudulent intent with Rule 9(b) particularity. The court does not say what is missing (the defendants had argued no allegation that stickered machines were made after the lapse). | particularity/lapsed-safety-certification-sticker-still-displayed | In 2010, SnoWizard’s ice-shaving machine allegedly fell out of compliance with ETL and its certification lapsed. However, as of August 5, 2011, Plaintiffs maintain that SnoWizard ice-shaving machines still displayed stickers indicating ETL certification.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [13239:13493] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.Therefore, both RICO mail fraud and wire fraud “require evidence of intent to defraud, i.e., evidence of a scheme to defraud by false or fraudulent pretenses.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [34755:34914] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.The Fifth Circuit requires that the allegations of fraud be plead with particularity, including “the who, what, when, where, and how.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [40257:40391] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.These allegations are insufficient to plead the requisite “evidence of intent to defraud” with the particularity required to state a claim for RICO mail or wire fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [40701:40868] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995. |
| /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved Intent inferred from the number and pattern of misleading statements; money-back and exchange guarantees are evidence of good faith but did not compel acquittal where they were time-limited or conditional and defrauded buyers were unlikely to use them. The price mark-up line is context the court recites, not something it expressly relied on for intent. | inferred-from-pattern-of-deception/refund-and-exchange-policy-offered-as-good-faith | Under the refund policy, if for any reason a customer changed his mind or was not completely satisfied within thirty days, his money was returned without question.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [4390:4553] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.Under the exchange policy, customers who had purchased lots in the ten units within which the company had not installed roads, staked lots, or provided parcel identification markers, could trade for property in the “improved” building area.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [3910:4150] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.Here the exchange policy was conditioned on building within a certain period of time, and the refund policy was limited to thirty days.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [17767:17902] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.Land which cost Lustiger from $33.20 to $125 an acre was in this way sold in one and a quarter acre parcels for from $395 to $495.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [3508:3638] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.As long as a sufficient number of the statements were shown to be knowingly false, deceptive or misleading to permit the trial court to infer that defendant intentionally engaged in a scheme to defraud, the conviction must be affirmed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [7996:8231] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.While such policies may be evidence of good faith, they do not necessarily negate a finding of bad faith.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [17603:17708] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.Lustiger also argues that his refund and exchange policies negate any finding of fraudulent intent. We disagree.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [17490:17602] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448. |
| /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services); party: Boone (housing coordinator; not the central schemer); theory: admissibility of others' open shakedowns to show the defendant's knowledge (ostrich instruction given); subject: party=Boone (housing coordinator; not the central schemer); theory=admissibility of others' open shakedowns to show the defendant's knowledge (ostrich instruction given) Relevance ruling only: the court holds the evidence admissible on knowledge/intent (and says it would also qualify under Rule 404(b)); it does not review whether intent was sufficiently proved. The jury found intent; the conscious-avoidance instruction is quoted but not challenged. | inferred-knowledge/open-and-blatant-practice-in-defendants-office | In that capacity, one of Boone’s jobs was to issue the aforementioned letters of support for the alderman, and those letters bore his name as the contact person should the recipients have any concerns, and also bore both his and Troutman’s initials.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [12750:12999] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.That evidence again established that the requests for money were not made in a secretive manner, but rather that such business was openly conducted in the presence of others in the office, and that such requests were made in the first or second contacts with the victims seeking the letters of support.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [28894:29196] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.She did not identify Boone as one of the individuals that she remembered at that meeting.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [7928:8017] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Therefore, the government could prove knowledge by demonstrating that Boone must have known of the scheme to defraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [27067:27184] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.In order to prove mail fraud, the government was required to establish: (1) that Boone participated in a scheme to defraud; (2) that he did so knowingly and with the intent to defraud; and (3) that Boone used or caused the use of the mails in furtherance of the scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [17995:18264] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Accordingly, evidence of the blatant and open nature of the requests for payments, and of the large number of individuals in the office who were participants in the scheme, was relevant to demonstrate that Boone must have known of the scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [27709:27951] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8. |
Court interpretations
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.
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
Even if Hagen broke a promise to refund $12,000 for the early termination, breach of contract is not fraud, and the cashing of Penner's check in April was not in furtherance of any dispute that arose at the end of the grazing season.
Even if Hagen broke a promise to refund $12,000 for the early termination, breach of contract is not fraud, and the cashing of Penner's check in April was not in furtherance of any dispute that arose at the end of the grazing season.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl#/f3d/917/0668-01; Unicode character offsets [11661:11894] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f4086637fbe3659b9c3436280b529e9f82158bf57ed3b57d504b7c7f7ebea967.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.