AND · 18usc1343:honest-services-boundary
Section 1346 supplies the intangible-right theory. Do not combine its different target with the property element above. Its bribery/kickback and fiduciary-duty limits require separate analysis; this boundary node is not a complete honest-services claim.
Exact element source
scheme or artifice to defraudSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1343; Unicode character offsets [94:123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 944569d18f6d3624ae87dde151ee823f6cf078faa69c6d3e59fb832bc1aaa933.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| fiduciary-duty/believed-agent-of-victim-was-undercover-officer | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 — satisfied | |
| public-official-bribery/legislator-paid-to-promote-private-ventures-with-agencies | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — satisfied | |
| undisclosed-conflict-of-interest/official-acts-beyond-own-decision-making-authority | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| 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 | 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/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; theory: § 1346 honest services of a person the defendant believed to be the victim's consultant; no actual fiduciary duty; subject: theory=§ 1346 honest services of a person the defendant believed to be the victim's consultant; no actual fiduciary duty CAVEAT: dated authority. A 1997 district-court reading of § 1346 that predates the later narrowing of honest-services fraud reflected in the law file's boundary rule ("covers only bribery or kickbacks"). The scheme here was a bribe, but the no-actual-fiduciary-duty ruling should not be taken as a current statement of the theory's limits. The disputed point is legal (must someone actually owe the victim a fiduciary duty?) and is answered no; on that reading the trial evidence suffices. The bribe-taker was an undercover officer who owed the company nothing. | fiduciary-duty/believed-agent-of-victim-was-undercover-officer | The evidence at trial showed that defendant agreed to pay a $1.25 million bribe to an undercover officer (who defendant believed to be a consultant of Tishman) to induce Tishman to participate in a construction project, and that defendant concealed his agreement with the undercover officer from Tishman.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [834:1138] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.It may be true, as defendant asserts, that no person has yet been prosecuted under the wire fraud statute for attempting to bribe someone who was actually an undercover officer rather than the intended victim’s employee.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [6314:6534] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.The statute does not expressly limit culpability to cases involving schemes to deprive another of, “honest services of a fiduciary.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [6963:7095] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.There is simply no indication from the text of §§ 1343 and 1346 that a necessary element of wire fraud is the existence of an actual fiduciary duty.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [7096:7244] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.Accordingly, the government’s proof satisfies every essential element of wire fraud under §§ 1343 and 1346.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [10019:10126] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64. |
| /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsCounts were charged under §§ 1343 and 1346 (citizens' right to the official's honest services); the panel does not discuss § 1346. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
An honest services fraud scheme covers only bribery or kickbacks.
An honest services fraud scheme covers only bribery or kickbacks.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_926.jsonl#/f3d/926/0361-01; Unicode character offsets [9374:9439] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56a673f1dd795c366bc196f56bed8fa59fe928d42325fa708873309b90485d60.Section 1346 supplies the intangible-right theory. Do not combine its different target with the property element above. Its bribery/kickback and fiduciary-duty limits require separate analysis; this boundary node is not a complete honest-services claim.