AND · 18usc1341: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_sec1341; Unicode character offsets [78:107] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74b1f92847676f0dece4359c6b22244b8e760d8e46a597847855747fcd542511.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| bribery-or-kickback provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the conduct is a bribe or kickback, the core of honest-services fraud (Skilling). | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| statute-availability provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether § 1346 is in the case at all. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (2). Excluded context examples:United States v. Henry — 29 F.3d 112 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/procedural · not counted Cleveland v. United States — 531 U.S. 12 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md)) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Henry — 29 F.3d 112 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / procedural party: Henry (Commission comptroller) and Mike (state official); theory: breach of a public official's duties to the public and the Commission; opinion: majority; subject: party=Henry (Commission comptroller) and Mike (state official); theory=breach of a public official's duties to the public and the Commission; opinion=majority Real ruling: NON-RETROACTIVITY of the honest-services amendment (printed "18 U.S.C. § 1364" in the source; § 1346 is meant) - it took effect on 18 November 1988, after the 1986-88 conduct, so the indictment must meet McNally and the fiduciary-breach allegations cannot carry it. A temporal-reach ruling, not a decision on whether the conduct would be honest-services fraud (bribery or kickbacks are never examined); hence not-reached, scope procedural. The fact polarities only mark which way each line cuts on the availability of the 1346 route. | temporal-reach/conduct-before-section-1346-effective-date | The indictment asserted that in rigging the bids, “Henry violatefd] his fiduciary duty and Commission custom, practices and policies”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_29.jsonl#/f3d/29/0112-01; Unicode character offsets [3293:3426] (end exclusive); SHA-256 48585ad0417a32453271cc5776b9db324b357461b0bf6490d7a01c321bf3cda2.It did not become effective until November 18, 1988, well after the bid-rigging alleged in the indictment ceased, and it is not retroactive.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_29.jsonl#/f3d/29/0112-01; Unicode character offsets [5297:5437] (end exclusive); SHA-256 48585ad0417a32453271cc5776b9db324b357461b0bf6490d7a01c321bf3cda2.Under McNally and Carpenter, a government official’s breach of his or her obligations to the public or an employee’s breach of his or her obligations to an employer cannot violate the fraud statutes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_29.jsonl#/f3d/29/0112-01; Unicode character offsets [5904:6103] (end exclusive); SHA-256 48585ad0417a32453271cc5776b9db324b357461b0bf6490d7a01c321bf3cda2.Therefore, to state an offense under the federal fraud statutes, the indictment against Henry and Mike must allege a scheme that meets McNally’s standards.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_29.jsonl#/f3d/29/0112-01; Unicode character offsets [5587:5742] (end exclusive); SHA-256 48585ad0417a32453271cc5776b9db324b357461b0bf6490d7a01c321bf3cda2. |
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services); count: Count IV; theory: post-Skilling: bribes demanded for an alderman's official support; subject: count=Count IV; theory=post-Skilling: bribes demanded for an alderman's official support The conviction rests on the 1346 theory, and the court notes that it survives Skilling because the scheme alleged is bribery. `satisfied` = the scheme falls inside the bribery/kickback core, not a property fraud. CAVEAT: thin authority. The point was uncontested ("the parties do not argue otherwise") and is disposed of in one short paragraph of an appeal that challenges only evidentiary rulings; the court speaks of "the allegations underlying the honest services conviction" and reviews no evidence of bribery. Basis is therefore [conceded], not a contested ruling of law. | bribery/payment-demanded-for-officials-letter-of-support | Pursuant to that scheme, developers who wanted to build or rehabilitate property in the 20th Ward were required to pay a bribe to Troutman’s office in order to gain support that they needed to proceed, such as letters of support from her for zoning changes, alley access, and curb cutting.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [1237:1526] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.The allegations were that a payment was made in order to obtain the services that the alderman’s office is supposed to provide.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [2658:2785] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Accordingly, the Court held that in order to avoid vagueness problems, § 1346 must be read as criminalizing only bribery and kickback schemes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [2293:2435] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Thus, the allegations underlying the honest services conviction in this case involved the type of bribery conduct that the Court preserved in Skilling, and which constitutes criminal conduct under § 1346.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [2786:2990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8. |
| Cleveland v. United States — 531 U.S. 12 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md)) | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsThe Court notes no honest-services theory was asserted for the licensing scheme; 1346 is used only to show that Congress restored one intangible right and no other. | section-1346/not-invoked-licensing-fraud | Significantly, Congress covered only the intangible right of honest services even though federal courts, relying on McNally, had dismissed, for want of monetary loss to any victim, prosecutions under § 1341 for diverse forms of public corruption, including licensing fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_531.jsonl#/us/531/0012-01; Unicode character offsets [8930:9203] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7475017476dcba887c9f39abcfaabec69164a6cec5dec1a7d59cf1ff35702e5c. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
An honest services fraud scheme covers only bribery or kickbacks.
United States v. Buncich — 926 F.3d 361 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (18usc1341: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
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.