AND · 18usc1343:wire
The defendant need not personally send the transmission. Boliaux affirmed a conviction where control of the dealership and payment system made the charged transmissions foreseeable; its quoted analysis is the district court reasoning expressly adopted on appeal. This is judicial construction of the statutory causation alternative. Foreseeability of wire use is distinct from proof that the charged transmission actually crossed state or national boundaries and furthered the scheme.
Exact element source
transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communicationSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1343; Unicode character offsets [233:323] (end exclusive); SHA-256 944569d18f6d3624ae87dde151ee823f6cf078faa69c6d3e59fb832bc1aaa933.any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or soundsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1343; Unicode character offsets [359:408] (end exclusive); SHA-256 944569d18f6d3624ae87dde151ee823f6cf078faa69c6d3e59fb832bc1aaa933.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| foreseeable-causation/intrastate-money-transfer-routed-through-out-of-state-computer | 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Excluded context examples: /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 — applied/superseded | |
| foreseeable-causation/victim-payment-wired-from-out-of-state-bank | 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 | |
| rule-9b-particularity/use-of-wires-alleged-on-information-and-belief | 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 | |
| telephone-orders/interstate-calls-to-buy-goods-for-smuggling | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — satisfied | |
| 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-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — applied/merits; /f-supp/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 — applied/merits; /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — 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 | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | 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 | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsTelephone calls of November 19 and 21, 1995; use of the wires was not contested. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f2d/829/0286-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987 | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | not Excluded from merits counts background / procedural basis: pleaded The claim actually brought is civil RICO (18 U.S.C. 1962(b),(c),(d)); § 1343 (with § 1341, treated together throughout) appears only as an alleged predicate act, hence case-level `role background`: no block in this file is an instance of wire fraud. A Rule 9(b) particularity ruling, not a holding that no wire was used: the bare information-and-belief allegation of wire/mail use fails 9(b), but dismissal was an abuse of discretion because the pleaded scheme and the out-of-state defendant make interstate communication probable and the details are peculiarly within defendants' knowledge. Remanded for 60 days of discovery limited to use of the wires and mails, then amendment. | rule-9b-particularity/use-of-wires-alleged-on-information-and-belief | On information and belief, in effecting the stock sale agreement, the grant of the security interest, in purporting to exercise remedies to enforce said security interest, and in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme, defendants on two or more occasions used the mails and/or transmitted communications by wire in interstate or foreign commerce ...Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [3269:3616] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73.The plaintiffs have merely stated conclusory allegations of mail and wire fraud, see ante p. 288, with no description of any time, place or content of the communication.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [18246:18415] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73.Defendants responded that, “to the best of [their] recollection,” they had not used the wires and mails.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [18639:18743] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73.Assuming the facts as stated in plaintiff’s complaint, defendant Monarch Investments is incorporated in a different state than that resided in by the other defendants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [13752:13919] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73.In RICO, the plaintiff must go beyond a showing of fraud and state the time, place and content of the alleged mail and wire communication perpetrating that fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [16678:16840] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73.In an appropriate case, where, for example the specific allegations of the plaintiff make it likely that the defendant used interstate mail or telecommunications facilities, and the specific information as to use is likely in the exclusive control of the defendant, the court should make a second determination as to whether the claim as presented warrants the allowance of discovery and if so, thereafter provide an opportunity to amend the defective complaint.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [12836:13298] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73.It is apparent in the instant case that the complaint does not satisfy Rule 9(b).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_829.jsonl#/f2d/829/0286-01; Unicode character offsets [18164:18245] (end exclusive); SHA-256 86b85ab2b6819f0efe8825cd505d39109400d94c02df852cb996b39d4b5bdc73. |
| /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; count: three substantive counts (wire transfers of March 6, 1995; May 14, 1996; July 11, 1996); theory: "causes to be transmitted": foreseeability that the victim would pay by interstate wire; subject: count=three substantive counts (wire transfers of March 6, 1995; May 14, 1996; July 11, 1996); theory="causes to be transmitted": foreseeability that the victim would pay by interstate wire The victim, not the defendant, sent the wires; causation rests on what the seller knew about where his customers banked. | foreseeable-causation/victim-payment-wired-from-out-of-state-bank | The interstate wires which were the subject of the substantive counts were three wire transfers made by Aben Johnson, the principal victim of the scheme, from his Michigan bank account to Hasson’s Florida bank account.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [11499:11717] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.Mr. and Mrs. Johnson maintained homes in both Florida and Michigan during the time when they purchased gems and jewelry from Hasson and, as was clear from many of the checks written by the Johnsons, maintained out-of-state bank accounts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [12404:12641] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.To “cause” the interstate wires to be used, the use of the wires need not be actually intended; it need only be reasonably foreseeable.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [6197:6332] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.It was foreseeable that these customers would at some point make use of the interstate wires to transfer large sums of money to complete some of their many expensive purchases.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [12642:12818] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859. |
| /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | not Excluded from merits counts applied / superseded basis: no-evidence; party: Brumley (recipient) and Cely (sender, unindicted co-conspirator); theory: "causes to be transmitted": foreseeability that a third party's handling of the transfer would use interstate wires; opinion: panel opinion of 1995-07-18, withdrawn on panel rehearing (79 F.3d 1430, IR /f3d/79/1430-01) and the case then reheard en banc (116 F.3d 728, IR /f3d/116/0728-01; convictions affirmed) -- neither annotated here; subject: party=Brumley (recipient) and Cely (sender, unindicted co-conspirator); theory="causes to be transmitted": foreseeability that a third party's handling of the transfer would use interstate wires; opinion=panel opinion of 1995-07-18, withdrawn on panel rehearing (79 F.3d 1430, IR /f3d/79/1430-01) and the case then reheard en banc (116 F.3d 728, IR /f3d/116/0728-01; convictions affirmed) -- neither annotated here CAVEAT: NOT a current holding. The corpus itself records that this opinion was withdrawn ("The opinion in this case issued under date of July 18, 1995, is withdrawn", /f3d/79/1430-01, which pretermitted the sufficiency claim) and that the en banc court later affirmed the convictions (/f3d/116/0728-01). The block is therefore `scope superseded` and not an instance; it records what the withdrawn panel opinion decided. Sufficiency reversed. Sender and recipient were both in Texas; only Western Union's agents contacted a computer in Missouri. The government thought foreseeability of the interstate leg was not an element and offered no proof of it; the company's national footprint and a New Jersey address on the back of the form were not notice. | foreseeable-causation/intrastate-money-transfer-routed-through-out-of-state-computer | Cely wired the money from the Western Union office in Lufkin, Texas, to Brumley in Beaumont, Texas.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_59.jsonl#/f3d/59/0517-01; Unicode character offsets [1493:1592] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee745115d6bb844b125eed9c1f91c4dcb191bdf422c551308bf7e2642cc72f3a.Neither Brumley nor Cely actually communicated with each other via interstate wires.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_59.jsonl#/f3d/59/0517-01; Unicode character offsets [6661:6745] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee745115d6bb844b125eed9c1f91c4dcb191bdf422c551308bf7e2642cc72f3a.The only evidence in the record that could even inferentially show knowledge or foreseeability is: (1) Western Union is an international company with many agents throughout the United States and (2) the form Cely used in Lufkin, Texas, to initiate the sending of the money to Brumley listed, on the back, a Western Union corporate address in New Jersey.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_59.jsonl#/f3d/59/0517-01; Unicode character offsets [8043:8396] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee745115d6bb844b125eed9c1f91c4dcb191bdf422c551308bf7e2642cc72f3a.Nowhere in his testimony does Cely say, or imply, that he knew, or that it was foreseeable to him, that his actions could result in an interstate wire communication.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_59.jsonl#/f3d/59/0517-01; Unicode character offsets [8437:8602] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee745115d6bb844b125eed9c1f91c4dcb191bdf422c551308bf7e2642cc72f3a.When asked on cross-examination by Brumley’s attorney whether a wire transfer customer would be aware of Western Union’s interstate computer system, the Western Union representative responded, “I can’t answer that.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_59.jsonl#/f3d/59/0517-01; Unicode character offsets [8736:8951] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee745115d6bb844b125eed9c1f91c4dcb191bdf422c551308bf7e2642cc72f3a.In order to prove that a defendant has used, or caused the use of, interstate wire communications, the government must show that the defendant knew, or that it was foreseeable to him that, an interstate wire communication would result.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_59.jsonl#/f3d/59/0517-01; Unicode character offsets [4333:4568] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee745115d6bb844b125eed9c1f91c4dcb191bdf422c551308bf7e2642cc72f3a.However, when the individual does not personally communicate, but instead causes another to communicate via interstate wires, foreseeability is not always so readily apparent.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_59.jsonl#/f3d/59/0517-01; Unicode character offsets [5210:5385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee745115d6bb844b125eed9c1f91c4dcb191bdf422c551308bf7e2642cc72f3a.There is not sufficient evidence in this record upon which a trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was foreseeable to Brumley or Cely that their actions would cause the Western Union agents to make interstate wire communications.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_59.jsonl#/f3d/59/0517-01; Unicode character offsets [9123:9373] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ee745115d6bb844b125eed9c1f91c4dcb191bdf422c551308bf7e2642cc72f3a. |
| /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded CAVEAT: uncontested point resting on one sentence; not a contested ruling on the wire element. Use of the wires (and its interstate character, New York to Maryland) was not disputed in this Court; only scheme and property were. The sentence is the premise of the Court's answer to the extraterritoriality objection, not a contested ruling on the wire element. | telephone-orders/interstate-calls-to-buy-goods-for-smuggling | According to the evidence presented at trial, the Pasquantinos, while in New York, ordered liquor over the telephone from discount package stores in Maryland.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [760:918] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.Unlike the treaties and the antismuggling statute, the wire fraud statute punishes fraudulent use of domestic wires, whether or not such conduct constitutes smuggling, occurs aboard a vessel, or evades foreign taxes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [9617:9833] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.Petitioners used U. S. interstate wires to execute a scheme to defraud a foreign sovereign of tax revenue.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [29824:29930] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
The evidence of Boliaux's supervision of Joliet Motors, and his involvement in the payment-processing system, was sufficient to make the wire transmissions a foreseeable consequence of his scheme.
The evidence of Boliaux's supervision of Joliet Motors, and his involvement in the payment-processing system, was sufficient to make the wire transmissions a foreseeable consequence of his scheme.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/0493-01; Unicode character offsets [3937:4133] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a2d8cc2afe88a91fa856e6f1d0d7fefd9cfc2de1338b80b4342b6d9644d0e078.The defendant need not personally send the transmission. Boliaux affirmed a conviction where control of the dealership and payment system made the charged transmissions foreseeable; its quoted analysis is the district court reasoning expressly adopted on appeal. This is judicial construction of the statutory causation alternative. Foreseeability of wire use is distinct from proof that the charged transmission actually crossed state or national boundaries and furthered the scheme.