OR · 18usc1962:racketeering.mail-fraud
Most common civil RICO predicate; subject to Rule 9(b) particularity and resistance from courts where plaintiffs attempt to dress up an ordinary breach of contract as mail/wire fraud.
Exact element source
racketeering activitySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [148:169] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America — 926 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (2013) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| _pleading accepted; 4 observed cases | The element fails or survives purely on generic pleading sufficiency (conclusory allegations, group pleading, Rule 9(b) particularity), without the court reaching any substantive sub-question. | 3 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 2; excluded context 1 | 3 | Fleetwood Servs., LLC v. Complete Bus. Solutions Grp., Inc. — 374 F. Supp. 3d 361 (2019) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz — 976 F.2d 1016 (1992) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · counted Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe — 660 F.3d 346 (2011) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted |
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Beechwood Re Ltd. — 377 F. Supp. 3d 414 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 — not · law (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| scheme-to-defraud provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the alleged conduct is a scheme to defraud at all. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| use-of-mails provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a mailing in furtherance is shown. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a),(c),(d); party: the borrower (Sichenzia) defendants; count: mail and wire fraud predicates; subject: party=the borrower (Sichenzia) defendants; count=mail and wire fraud predicates State-law rule (NY: no fraud claim for a promise never intended to be kept absent separate duty / collateral misrepresentation / special damages) imported to defeat the federal mail-fraud predicate. | breach-of-contract-dressed-as-fraud | As against the Sichenzia Defendants, Plaintiffs assert that they were defrauded into entering into contracts (mortgages, loans, etc.) that the counterparty never intended to honor.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [36249:36429] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.The Plaintiffs claim that the mortgages are “false and invalid” because “the Sichenzias and Cottrell closed on the mortgage loans prior to the date they obtained title to the properties”.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [38081:38268] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.It is fundamental that a Plaintiff who contends that the counterparty to a contract never intended to perform the terms of that contract may only prevail in an action for fraud under limited circumstances:Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [35413:35618] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Plaintiffs fail to identify any legal duty owed to the Plaintiffs by any of the Sichen-zia Defendants that is separate from the duty to perform under the mortgages and notes as required by Cougar.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [37370:37566] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Without making any legally sufficient allegation of fraud, Plaintiffs cannot allege mail fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [38473:38568] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139. |
| Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a),(c),(d); party: the title-agent (Artesian) defendants; subject: party=the title-agent (Artesian) defendants Two failures: Rule 9(b) particularity for the letters; Schmuck "incident to an essential part of the scheme" for transmitted policies (many sent by courier, not mail/wire). | mailing-not-incident-to-essential-part-of-scheme | Plaintiffs allege, in their complaint and RICO Statement, that Artesian “accomplished” the fraudulent scheme by mailing or faxing copies of one defective mortgage, as well as certain letters and satisfactions of mortgages, to the Plaintiffs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [39079:39320] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.The allegations concerning the letters can be quickly dismissed, as the contents thereof are not set forth with specificity, nor are any misrepresentations identified with the specificity required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [39381:39599] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Plaintiff does not explain how the act of transmission was incidental to an essential part of the alleged fraudulent scheme to withhold and fail to file instruments so as to defeat Plaintiffs’ priority liensSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [39765:39972] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139. |
| Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America — 926 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (2013) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c),(d) Mail/wire fraud via misleading brochures and "Statements of Understanding" is the predicate; its elements are stated but not in issue on this motion. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Fleetwood Servs., LLC v. Complete Bus. Solutions Grp., Inc. — 374 F. Supp. 3d 361 (2019) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (18usc1343: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md); 18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c); party: CBSG and PTF (moving defendants: the funder/servicer and the broker); count: Count IV, civil RICO § 1962(c); theory: wire fraud by misrepresenting a usurious loan as an enforceable factoring agreement; subject: party=CBSG and PTF (moving defendants: the funder/servicer and the broker); count=Count IV, civil RICO § 1962(c); theory=wire fraud by misrepresenting a usurious loan as an enforceable factoring agreement Added in triage. Wire-fraud predicates survive a Rule 9(b) particularity challenge. The court adds that the count would survive anyway on the unchallenged collection-of-unlawful-debt theory. | emails and ACH debits said to create the false impression that a usurious cash-advance agreement was enforceable | At its core, the Amended Complaint alleges the Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud by intentionally misrepresenting the enforceability of the Factoring Agreement, when, in fact, the Factoring Agreement was a usurious, and thus unenforceable, loan.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_374.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/374/0361-01; Unicode character offsets [27056:27309] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c041cf6cf58e2814a8ec0b0d635cfd00b5b7a557d2adb7ffa3eb21670f1c22db.In further support of its claim, Plaintiffs allege Defendants' use of the interstate wires to electronically debit its bank account "further created the impression" the Factoring Agreement was enforceable, and once Fleetwood Services experienced issues making payments, Defendants used emails and other wire communications to bolster this impression.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_374.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/374/0361-01; Unicode character offsets [27656:28006] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c041cf6cf58e2814a8ec0b0d635cfd00b5b7a557d2adb7ffa3eb21670f1c22db.Nevertheless, a plaintiff "must allege who made a misrepresentation to whom and the general content of the misrepresentation."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_374.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/374/0361-01; Unicode character offsets [28955:29081] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c041cf6cf58e2814a8ec0b0d635cfd00b5b7a557d2adb7ffa3eb21670f1c22db.As a result, the Court will deny Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_374.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/374/0361-01; Unicode character offsets [30986:31064] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c041cf6cf58e2814a8ec0b0d635cfd00b5b7a557d2adb7ffa3eb21670f1c22db. |
| Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Beechwood Re Ltd. — 377 F. Supp. 3d 414 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 — not · law (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a), (c), (d); party: Beechwood defendants (Beechwood Re, BAM, BBIL, BRILLC, Feuer, Taylor, Narain); count: civil RICO claims under § 1962(a), (c) and (d), Second Amended Complaint; theory: mail and wire fraud predicates whose gravamen is that plaintiff's assets were funnelled into Platinum-related securities; subject: party=Beechwood defendants (Beechwood Re, BAM, BBIL, BRILLC, Feuer, Taylor, Narain); count=civil RICO claims under § 1962(a), (c) and (d), Second Amended Complaint; theory=mail and wire fraud predicates whose gravamen is that plaintiff's assets were funnelled into Platinum-related securities Added in triage: the principal ground of dismissal. Under Zandford the fraud "coincided" with the securities transactions, so the PSLRA bar removes these predicates. | investment manager steering a client's funds into affiliated securities, pleaded as mail and wire fraud | In the instant case, by contrast, the SAC alleges that defendants funneled SHIP's assets into Platinum-related securities.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [25891:26013] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.It is a case in which the funds were obtained precisely for the purpose of acquiring the securities.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [27573:27673] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.The only allegations to which this bar arguably does not apply are the allegations that defendants misrepresented the market value of SHIP's assets in connection with defendants' regular withdrawal of performance fees.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [29294:29512] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.For the RICO Amendment to apply, "the fraud itself must be integral to the purchase and sale of the securities in question."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [24841:24965] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74.Based on these cases, the Court concludes that SHIP's allegations are barred by the RICO Amendment insofar as the gravamen of SHIP's mail and wire fraud claims is that Beechwood tunneled SHIP's assets to Platinum.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0414-01; Unicode character offsets [29080:29293] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c74ec68ba461f362e9f20621deaf8ca808eb83739109e098a4cd911bc194df74. |
| Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (b),(c),(d); count: mail fraud and wire fraud (treated together); subject: count=mail fraud and wire fraud (treated together) Use of mails/wires "in furtherance" and >=2 acts within ten years WERE adequately alleged; the failure is only Rule 9(b) particularity (no dates, places, contents). | rule-9b-particularity/no-who-what-when-where-how | It is further asserted that Southmost and Tri-State, acting through their controlling persons Gellman and Alfieri, by means of fraudulent and misleading information induced plaintiff to sell or transfer possession of plaintiff’s machinery to defendants for resale.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [2223:2487] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.According to the complaint, defendants have retained for their own use the money which they have received from these dealings instead of paying it over to plaintiff.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [3224:3389] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.Plaintiff fails to describe the date, place, or time of any phone calls or letters or other forms of interstate communication.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [28615:28741] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.The elements of an indictable offense under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes are: (1) a scheme designed to defraud or to obtain money or property by false pretenses and (2) use of the mails or interstate wires (including interstate telephone calls) in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [27057:27354] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.I find that this lack of specificity caused plaintiff’s allegations of mail fraud and wire fraud to be deficient.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [28875:28988] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c. |
| Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz — 976 F.2d 1016 (1992) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c),(d); count: the undercharging scheme (invoices to Cardinal Metals, 1985-86); subject: count=the undercharging scheme (invoices to Cardinal Metals, 1985-86) No dates for the allegedly false invoices although plaintiff held the records; leave to amend a third time properly denied. Removing this scheme shortened the alleged pattern from 35 months. | rule-9b-particularity/no-who-what-when-where-how | According to Midwest, Spitz and Grunfeld maintained a secret 50% stake in Cardinal and, as part of the scheme to defraud Midwest, Spitz routinely undercharged Cardinal for metal grinding services via invoices sent through the mails (the undercharging scheme).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_976.jsonl#/f2d/976/1016-01; Unicode character offsets [4095:4354] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebc98ea70879c4cb40e7f64b87cbfd47e72732fe1a73dbca8733e49576748b79.Second, Midwest, not the defendants, had peculiar access to the invoices on which the undercharging scheme was based: Spitz sent those invoices while employed at Midwest and Midwest presumably retained those business records.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_976.jsonl#/f2d/976/1016-01; Unicode character offsets [11708:11933] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebc98ea70879c4cb40e7f64b87cbfd47e72732fe1a73dbca8733e49576748b79.the complaint must, at minimum, describe the predicate acts with some specificity and “state the time, place, and content of the alleged communications perpetrating the fraud.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_976.jsonl#/f2d/976/1016-01; Unicode character offsets [9815:9991] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebc98ea70879c4cb40e7f64b87cbfd47e72732fe1a73dbca8733e49576748b79.First, the specificity standard, at minimum, requires a plaintiff to identify the time and place of the alleged predicate acts, see Graue Mill, 927 F.2d at 992; accord Feinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d 34, 42 (1st Cir.1991) (dismissing RICO complaint for failure to plead predicate acts with specificity), and Midwest failed to do so here.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_976.jsonl#/f2d/976/1016-01; Unicode character offsets [11356:11707] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebc98ea70879c4cb40e7f64b87cbfd47e72732fe1a73dbca8733e49576748b79. |
| Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe — 660 F.3d 346 (2011) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Mail or wire fraud predicate (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: pleaded; claim: (c); count: mail and wire fraud predicates; subject: count=mail and wire fraud predicates | rule-9b-particularity/no-who-what-when-where-how | Throughout the complaint, Plaintiffs repeatedly alleged that Defendants executed these fraudulent and illegal activities by using U.S. mails, telephones, and electronic communications with the specific intent to defraud and steal from numerous victims, including PlaintiffsSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [10962:11235] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.Rather, Plaintiffs circularly argue Defendants committed mail fraud by sending documents and funds through the U.S. mails in managing On Time Auto’s loan accountsSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [22861:23023] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.Considered in its entirety, however, the complaint presumes rather than details any use of the U.S. mails or electronic wire carrier in perpetrating the alleged scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [23266:23434] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.Finally, we note that Plaintiffs’ failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) in alleging mail and wire fraud also provided an independent basis for dismissal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [26109:26290] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
The elements of an indictable offense under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes are: (1) a scheme designed to defraud or to obtain money or property by false pretenses and (2) use of the mails or interstate wires (including interstate telephone calls) in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.
Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
The elements of an indictable offense under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes are: (1) a scheme designed to defraud or to obtain money or property by false pretenses and (2) use of the mails or interstate wires (including interstate telephone calls) in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [27057:27354] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.Most common civil RICO predicate; subject to Rule 9(b) particularity and resistance from courts where plaintiffs attempt to dress up an ordinary breach of contract as mail/wire fraud.
interpretation
the complaint must, at minimum, describe the predicate acts with some specificity and “state the time, place, and content of the alleged communications perpetrating the fraud.”
Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz — 976 F.2d 1016 (1992) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 (18usc1962: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md))
the complaint must, at minimum, describe the predicate acts with some specificity and “state the time, place, and content of the alleged communications perpetrating the fraud.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_976.jsonl#/f2d/976/1016-01; Unicode character offsets [9815:9991] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebc98ea70879c4cb40e7f64b87cbfd47e72732fe1a73dbca8733e49576748b79.Most common civil RICO predicate; subject to Rule 9(b) particularity and resistance from courts where plaintiffs attempt to dress up an ordinary breach of contract as mail/wire fraud.
interpretation
It is fundamental that a Plaintiff who contends that the counterparty to a contract never intended to perform the terms of that contract may only prevail in an action for fraud under limited circumstances:
Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
It is fundamental that a Plaintiff who contends that the counterparty to a contract never intended to perform the terms of that contract may only prevail in an action for fraud under limited circumstances:Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [35413:35618] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Most common civil RICO predicate; subject to Rule 9(b) particularity and resistance from courts where plaintiffs attempt to dress up an ordinary breach of contract as mail/wire fraud.