Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim

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 defraud
Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1341; Unicode character offsets [78:107] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74b1f92847676f0dece4359c6b22244b8e760d8e46a597847855747fcd542511.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
VariantDescriptionMerits instance blocksDistinct casesExample cases (up to 3 per group)
bribery/payment-demanded-for-officials-letter-of-support1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — satisfied
section-1346/not-invoked-licensing-fraud0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1
0No counted merits examples

Excluded context examples: /us/531/0012-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — rule-announced/merits

temporal-reach/conduct-before-section-1346-effective-date0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1
0No counted merits examples

Excluded context examples: /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — background/procedural

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopeVariantExact source quotations
/f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claimnot_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.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claimsatisfied
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.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

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.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/us/531/0012-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claimnot_reached
Excluded from merits counts
rule-announced / merits

The 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.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

An honest services fraud scheme covers only bribery or kickbacks.

/f3d/926/0361-01

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.