AND · 18usc1343:scheme
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.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| concealment-as-misrepresentation/undeclared-goods-smuggled-past-customs | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 1 | /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — satisfied Excluded context examples: /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — applied/dissent | |
| false-promise | A promise made as part of a fraudulent plan; later nonperformance alone does not establish fraud. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| fraudulent-inducement | Material deception induces a transaction transferring the victim's money or property; equivalent value in return is not dispositive. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| fraudulent-inducement/false-subcontractor-compliance-promise-to-win-public-contract | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — satisfied | |
| fraudulent-inducement/misdescribed-goods-backed-by-sham-independent-verification | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 — satisfied | |
| fraudulent-transfer/sham-stock-sale-and-security-interest-to-defeat-judgment-creditor | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/829/0286-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987 — background/procedural | |
| inchoate-scheme/factually-impossible-sting | 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 | |
| investor-deception/channel-stuffing-to-inflate-reported-revenue | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — applied/lower-court | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — applied/merits; /f2d/844/0036-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988 — applied/merits; /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 | 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/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; theory: scheme incapable of success (target of the bribe was a government agent); subject: theory=scheme incapable of success (target of the bribe was a government agent) Impossibility is no defense: a scheme is judged by what the schemer devised and intended, not by whether it could have harmed the victim. The cuts-against line is the court's own statement of the defendant's premise, which it then holds legally irrelevant. | inchoate-scheme/factually-impossible-sting | Here, the evidence produced at trial directly supported the government’s allegation that defendant attempted to defraud Tish-man by bribing someone defendant thought was a consultant to Tishman.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [9702:9896] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.If the intended victim has no actual right to the employee’s honest services, the defendant’s scheme cannot be said to actually harm the victim by depriving the victim of those honest services.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [8728:8921] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.Yet, as noted in Part II of this Opinion, § 1343 does not require a defendant to have actually defrauded the intended victim, or that a defendant’s scheme was capable of doing so.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [8922:9101] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.The essence of the wire fraud act is the defendant’s intent to defraud, and the scheme he perpetrates in furtherance of that intent, and not the actual corruption of an employee.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [9102:9280] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64. |
| /f2d/829/0286-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Excluded from merits counts background / procedural basis: pleaded The adequacy of the scheme allegations is a factor in the court's discovery-before-dismissal test, not a merits ruling; a footnote says the comment does not reflect on the strength of the merits. No misrepresentation to the plaintiff is identified: the alleged fraud is a transfer of assets out of a judgment creditor's reach. | fraudulent-transfer/sham-stock-sale-and-security-interest-to-defeat-judgment-creditor | Shortly after entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff, Becher, Valenti and Schechter, pursuant to an alleged conspiracy to defraud creditors, sold all the stock of Ginsu and IBI to buyers, including defendants Schecter and Monarch Investments, an entity created by Schecter.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [1144:1418] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73.The transfer of the security interest was made without fair consideration to the corporations, thereby rendering the corporations insolvent.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [1569:1709] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73.After plaintiff commenced efforts to collect its judgment against Ginsu and IBI, defendants Becher and Valenti declared a default under the stock sale agreement, and exercising their rights as holders of a security interest, took possession of Ginsu’s and IBI’s assets.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [1889:2158] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73.The plaintiff clearly set out a general scheme, which very plausibly was meant to defraud the plaintiff, and also probably involved interstate commerce.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [13599:13751] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73. |
| /f2d/844/0036-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsThe deception itself (false end-user certificates and false statements to the State and Defense Departments about the arms' destination) is alleged and not questioned; the counts fail only for want of a property interest of the deceived party. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; theory: misrepresentations reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence (not mere market-value puffery); subject: theory=misrepresentations reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence (not mere market-value puffery) Defendant argued he had only overstated market value, which a prudent buyer could check. Rejected: the lies went to physical characteristics a lay buyer cannot verify, and sham "independent" appraisals and staged meetings discouraged checking. | fraudulent-inducement/misdescribed-goods-backed-by-sham-independent-verification | There was also ample testimony regarding the special training and equipment required to evaluate the physical qualities of fíne gems and jewelry from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the misrepresentations were not easily verifiable by the person of ordinary prudence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [10221:10502] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.Furthermore, Hasson prepared false appraisals and arranged for false appraisals prepared by co-conspirator posing as an independent appraiser, creating the impression that his representations were independently verified and making it unlikely that a person of ordinary prudence would invest the time and expense to obtain second or third evaluations of the items purchased.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [10503:10876] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.The con included paying co-conspirators to play the roles of the Sultan’s nephew and the nephew’s entourage at a meeting between Johnson and the “nephew” held on Hasson’s private jet, disguised as the nephew’s jet, in late 1995, and at a similar meeting held in a limousine at the Palm Beach airport in late 1996.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [16023:16336] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.That is, not all misrepresentations or omissions constitute a scheme, to defraud; the misrepresentation or omission must be material and it must be one on which a person of ordinary prudence would rely.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [8193:8395] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.Puffery, for example, is not part of a scheme to defraud because a person of ordinary prudence would not rely on it; nor would a person of ordinary prudence engaged in an arm’s-length purchase rely on the seller’s representations regarding the market value of the property when the market value can be, and should be, easily verified by consulting other sources.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [8657:9019] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.Has-son’s conduct simply cannot be analogized to the mere misrepresentation of accessible market values which, as we held in Brown, could not be reasonably calculated to induce purchase by a person of ordinary prudence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [9677:9896] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859. |
| /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsLoans from a lawyer practising before the defendant's agency, and favours in return, are recited but the court never decides whether they were a scheme to defraud. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: conceded Existence of the fraud was conceded at trial and is not an appellate issue; only the defendant's knowledge of it was disputed. | investor-deception/channel-stuffing-to-inflate-reported-revenue | Baker, along with the company's other senior executives, engaged in a "channel-stuffing" scheme that involved sending excess products to a distributor that did not need those products.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [325:509] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5.ArthroCare reported those shipments as legitimate sales, which inflated the company's revenue numbers in its financial reports.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [510:637] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5.At trial, Baker's counsel conceded that a fraud had occurred at ArthroCare, but the defense was that Gluk, Raffle, and Applegate had orchestrated it without Baker's knowledge.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [8197:8372] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5. |
| /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved Hiding goods and not declaring them is treated as an implied representation to customs that there was nothing to declare. The common-law revenue rule does not carve tax-evasion schemes against foreign sovereigns out of "scheme to defraud" (Part III), and the prosecution is a domestic, not extraterritorial, application (Part IV). | concealment-as-misrepresentation/undeclared-goods-smuggled-past-customs | They employed Hilts and others to drive the liquor over the Canadian border, without paying the required excise taxes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [964:1082] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.The drivers avoided paying taxes by hiding the liquor in their vehicles and failing to declare the goods to Canadian customs officials.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [1089:1224] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.The evidence showed that petitioners routinely concealed imported liquor from Canadian officials and failed to declare those goods on customs forms.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [8852:9000] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.Their offense was complete the moment they executed the scheme inside the United States; “[t]he wire fraud statute punishes the scheme, not its success.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [29931:30084] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.This, then, was a scheme “designed to defraud by representations,” Durland v. United States, 161 U. S. 306, 313 (1896), and therefore a “scheme or artifice to defraud” Canada of taxes due on the smuggled goods.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [9132:9342] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693. |
| /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not Excluded from merits counts applied / dissent basis: law; opinion: Ginsburg, J., dissenting (joined by Breyer; Scalia and Souter in part); subject: opinion=Ginsburg, J., dissenting (joined by Breyer; Scalia and Souter in part) The dissent would hold a scheme whose only wrong is evasion of foreign customs and tax law outside 1343 (presumption against extraterritoriality, revenue rule, the specific antismuggling statute 18 U.S.C. 546, rule of lenity). The dissent is truncated by the 60000-char cap and was only skimmed. | concealment-as-misrepresentation/undeclared-goods-smuggled-past-customs | The presumption against extraterritoriality, which guides courts in the absence of congressional direction, provides ample cause to conclude that § 1343 does not extend to the instant scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [51565:51756] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693. |
| /us/557/0110-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / procedural count: counts 3-6 (wire fraud; four Enron Broadband press releases in 2000); subject: count=counts 3-6 (wire fraud; four Enron Broadband press releases in 2000) The wire fraud counts matter only as acquittals whose preclusive effect on the hung insider-trading counts is in issue. The Court holds that hung counts play no part in the Ashe issue-preclusion analysis and remands; it does not decide what the acquittals necessarily determined (lack of insider information, per CA5, or non-participation in the scheme to defraud, per the district court), and says nothing about any element of 1343. | Unspecified variant | Counts 3 through 6 alleged that petitioner and others committed four acts of wire fraud when they issued four EBS-related press releases in 2000.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0110-01; Unicode character offsets [3231:3376] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d49e4e2921f15336497bab82957f214236c36a42fb3495b042401d9f3bb6b887.The jury acquitted petitioner on the fraud counts but failed to reach a verdict on the insider trading counts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0110-01; Unicode character offsets [4661:4771] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d49e4e2921f15336497bab82957f214236c36a42fb3495b042401d9f3bb6b887. |
| /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved A false promise in the bid plus later false certifications of performance; giving equal value in return does not take the plan outside "scheme to defraud / to obtain money by false pretenses". | fraudulent-inducement/false-subcontractor-compliance-promise-to-win-public-contract | Accordingly, as part of the bidding process, Kousisis represented that Alpha would acquire ap- proximately $6.4 million in painting supplies from Markias, Inc., a prequalifed disadvantaged business.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [13848:14046] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.In short, Markias was no more than a paper pusher, funneling checks and invoices to and from Alpha's actual suppliers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [14672:14790] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.As the proj- ects progressed, he falsely reported qualifying payments to Markias.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [15318:15399] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Rather, the theory criminalizes a particular species of fraud: intention- ally lying to induce a victim into a transaction that will cost her money or property.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [48756:48916] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.By using Markias as a pass-through entity, petitioners “devised” a “scheme” to ob- tain contracts through feigned compliance with PennDOT's disadvantaged-business requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [22470:22645] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.A conviction premised on a fraudulent inducement thus com- ports with § 1343.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [24161:24238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a. |
Court interpretations
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.
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
By prohibiting the “scheme to defraud,” rather than the completed fraud, the elements of reliance and damage would clearly be inconsistent with the statutes Congress enacted.
/us/527/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
By prohibiting the “scheme to defraud,” rather than the completed fraud, the elements of reliance and damage would clearly be inconsistent with the statutes Congress enacted.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_527.jsonl#/us/527/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [37779:37953] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e0a4af797b1293eb68136f29db1ed43b57bd1627cee70ab67e5a05c81288e673.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.
not-required
Actual victim reliance or completed economic damage (Neder); materiality and the statutory communication remain required.
No source quotation recorded.