AND · 18usc1343:furtherance
The wire act must further the fraudulent scheme; proof of a scheme cannot substitute for proof of the charged transmission. Buncich was an honest-services prosecution: its transmission/furtherance holding applies to the common communication requirement, not as a substitute for the property-fraud claim's separate property and materiality conjuncts.
Exact element source
for the purpose of executing such scheme or artificeSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1343; Unicode character offsets [409:461] (end exclusive); SHA-256 944569d18f6d3624ae87dde151ee823f6cf078faa69c6d3e59fb832bc1aaa933.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| after-objective-obtained/call-arranging-payoff-and-concealment | 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 | |
| indictment-tracks-statute/wire-specifics-not-examined | 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 | |
| payment-for-induced-sale/genuine-item-bought-on-false-resale-story | 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 | |
| payment-for-induced-sale/item-with-misstated-physical-characteristics | 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 | |
| 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: /f2d/829/0286-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987 — background/merits; /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 — 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 | Wire transmission for execution of scheme | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; count: Counts 5-10; subject: count=Counts 5-10 CAVEAT: thin authority. The point was uncontested and the treatment is one conclusory sentence with no `held` line of its own: the court notes only that each count alleges a wire in furtherance and says the nature of the wires is immaterial to the motion; nothing about how any wire advanced the scheme is examined. Basis stays [pleaded] rather than [conceded] because a defendant moving to dismiss an indictment concedes no fact; what was undisputed is only the facial adequacy of the allegation. | indictment-tracks-statute/wire-specifics-not-examined | Counts 5-10 each also allege a specific wire communication transmitted or caused to be transmitted by defendant in furtherance of that scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [7725:7867] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3.The specific nature of the five alleged wire communications is not material to the analysis called for by defendant’s motionSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_562.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/562/0719-01; Unicode character offsets [2509:2633] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a8abb78112a8331b1d8b14c813328104287a0c8948a48d6e8fb60e716554f0d3. |
| /f-supp/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 | Wire transmission for execution of scheme | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; count: Count Two (November 21, 1995 telephone call); subject: count=Count Two (November 21, 1995 telephone call) The scheme did not end when the favourable recommendation was secured: paying the bribe and hiding it from the victim were still to come, so a call about structuring the payments furthers it (conspiracy payoff and concealment cases cited by analogy). | after-objective-obtained/call-arranging-payoff-and-concealment | At the beginning of the November 21,1995 telephone call, the undercover officer informed defendant that he had already made a favorable recommendation to Tishman.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [10590:10752] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.Defendant also intended to pay the undercover officer a bribe for his participation in defendant’s scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [11002:11108] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.Defendant concedes that the November 21, 1995 telephone conversation between defendant and the undercover officer touched on how defendant would structure the bribe payments to avoid creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [11540:11773] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.As the bribe was an integral part of defendant’s scheme, any conversation between defendant and the undercover officer regarding how the bribe would be made were “in furtherance” of the defendant’s overall scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [11127:11340] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64.A judgment of acquittal with regard to Count Two is not warranted on the ground that the November 21 telephone call was not “in furtherance” of defendant’s scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_957.jsonl#/f-supp/957/0039-01; Unicode character offsets [12182:12345] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d4d9c76f73ba5d2026b0b0f29447c423328d268df1178783fd6dcec8db2fbe64. |
| /f2d/829/0286-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987 | Wire transmission for execution of scheme | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 | Wire transmission for execution of scheme | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; count: wire transfer of March 6, 1995 ($300,000); subject: count=wire transfer of March 6, 1995 ($300,000) | payment-for-induced-sale/item-with-misstated-physical-characteristics | The March 6, 1995, wire transfer was for the purchase of two items, one of which was represented to the Johnsons as a diamond ring featuring a flawless 22.11-carat diamond with a color grade of D.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [13897:14093] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.This ring in fact featured an 11.37-carat diamond with a clarity grade VS2 and a color grade L to M.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [14202:14302] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.These representations were supported with an appraisal prepared by a co-conspirator and provided by Hasson.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [14094:14201] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.An interstate wire transmission is “for the purpose of executing” the scheme to defraud if it is “incident to an essential part of the scheme” or “a step in the plot.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [13672:13839] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.This wire transfer was an interstate transmission over the wires caused for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [14571:14694] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859. |
| /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 | Wire transmission for execution of scheme | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; count: wire transfers of May 14 and July 11, 1996 ($577,500 for a necklace and pin); subject: count=wire transfers of May 14 and July 11, 1996 ($577,500 for a necklace and pin) The goods paid for by these wires were not themselves misdescribed; the purchase was induced by an invented buyer who supposedly required these pieces, and that lie was material to the decision to buy. | payment-for-induced-sale/genuine-item-bought-on-false-resale-story | the government introduced no evidence that the physical and objective characteristics of these two pieces of jewelry were misrepresentedSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [15394:15530] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.Hasson later induced the Johnsons to repurchase these two pieces, falsely representing that a potential buyer of the Johnsons’ gem and jewelry collection, the Sultan of Brunei, was interested in completing this very substantial purchase only if these items were included in the transaction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [15006:15296] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.Hasson specifically represented that the Sultan wanted these two pieces of jewelry included in the Johnsons’ collection because they had been stolen from the Sultan’s mother.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [16806:16980] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.To violate the wire fraud statute, it is not necessary that the transmitted information include any misrepresentation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [13343:13461] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.We readily conclude that the use of the wires to make payment for the two pieces of jewelry whose purchase was fraudulently induced was “for the purpose of executing” the scheme to defraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [17070:17259] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859. |
| /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 | Wire transmission for execution of scheme | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 | Wire transmission for execution of scheme | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
To establish wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the government must prove the defendant (1) participated in a scheme to defraud, (2) intended to defraud, and (3) used interstate wires in furtherance of the fraud.
To establish wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the government must prove the defendant (1) participated in a scheme to defraud, (2) intended to defraud, and (3) used interstate wires in furtherance of the fraud.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_926.jsonl#/f3d/926/0361-01; Unicode character offsets [9029:9241] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56a673f1dd795c366bc196f56bed8fa59fe928d42325fa708873309b90485d60.The wire act must further the fraudulent scheme; proof of a scheme cannot substitute for proof of the charged transmission. Buncich was an honest-services prosecution: its transmission/furtherance holding applies to the common communication requirement, not as a substitute for the property-fraud claim's separate property and materiality conjuncts.
interpretation
Both parties agree the evidence presented to the trial court failed to establish the wire transfers that were the basis of Counts I-III. Buncich's conviction on Counts I-III is hereby reversed.
Both parties agree the evidence presented to the trial court failed to establish the wire transfers that were the basis of Counts I-III. Buncich's conviction on Counts I-III is hereby reversed.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_926.jsonl#/f3d/926/0361-01; Unicode character offsets [9651:9844] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56a673f1dd795c366bc196f56bed8fa59fe928d42325fa708873309b90485d60.The wire act must further the fraudulent scheme; proof of a scheme cannot substitute for proof of the charged transmission. Buncich was an honest-services prosecution: its transmission/furtherance holding applies to the common communication requirement, not as a substitute for the property-fraud claim's separate property and materiality conjuncts.