AND · 18usc1341:scheme
A fraudulent plan, including a deliberately false promise, is required; an unsuccessful scheme can qualify. Do not convert a mere breach of contract into fraudulent intent.
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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| common-law-fraud-incorporation/reliance-and-damage-not-required | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/527/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 — rule-announced/merits | |
| deceptive-element/ordinary-trademark-infringement-recast-as-fraud | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/912/0404-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — background/merits | |
| false-promise | A promise made as part of a fraudulent plan; later nonperformance alone does not establish fraud. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| fraudulent-inducement | Material deception induces a transaction transferring the victim's money or property; equivalent value in return is not dispositive. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| fraudulent-inducement/broker-submits-falsified-mortgage-loan-application | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied | |
| fraudulent-inducement/mail-order-land-sale-brochure-portraying-nonexistent-planned-community | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied | |
| fraudulent-inducement/odometer-rollback-wholesaler-defrauding-downstream-retail-buyers | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/664/0161-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — satisfied | |
| misrepresentation-of-legal-rights/asserting-intellectual-property-rights-against-competitors | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/912/0404-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — background/merits | |
| scope-of-scheme/uncharged-later-shakedowns-by-co-schemers | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — rule-announced/procedural | |
| 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/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — applied/merits; /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — background/merits; /us/531/0012-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/912/0404-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: pleaded; party: customers and competitors (recipients of the representations); theory: asserting the fraudulently obtained patent and trademark rights in the marketplace (advertising, cease-and-desist letters, internet postings); subject: party=customers and competitors (recipients of the representations); theory=asserting the fraudulently obtained patent and trademark rights in the marketplace (advertising, cease-and-desist letters, internet postings) The court treats marketplace assertions of IP rights as derivative of the non-actionable fraud on the USPTO, adding that misrepresentations of law cannot ground fraud. It does not separately analyse the allegation that the whole machine was advertised as "patented" when no such patent ever existed, which does not depend on any USPTO filing. | misrepresentation-of-legal-rights/asserting-intellectual-property-rights-against-competitors | According to Plaintiffs, SnoWizard filed a patent application for the entirety of the ice-shaving machine in 1942, which was denied; however, the words “patent pending” were displayed on the door of the machines from 1942 to 1984, at which time the molding on the door was altered to read “patented,” and SnoWizard’s promotional literature also claimed the machine was patented.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [4911:5289] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.SnoWizard then sent cease and desist letters to manufacturers and distributors on the basis of its registered trademarks.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [8117:8238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.Based on the patents SnoWizard claimed on its ice-shaving machines, Plaintiffs allegedly stopped purchasing, distributing, selling, and using ice-shaving machines that were not of the SnoWizard brand.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [6637:6837] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.This position is further buttressed by the general rule that fraud cannot be predicated upon misrepresentations of law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [37078:37197] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.However, Plaintiffs must still plead a scheme to defraud upon which the predicate acts of mail or wire fraud may be based.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [37857:37979] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.Therefore, since the underlying alleged fraud on the USPTO does not constitute mail or wire fraud, SnoWizard’s representations to customers and competitors regarding its intellectual property rights cannot constitute RICO violations.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [36844:37077] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995. |
| /f-supp-2d/912/0404-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: pleaded; theory: infringement of the plaintiffs' trademarks, coupled with fraud on the USPTO; subject: theory=infringement of the plaintiffs' trademarks, coupled with fraud on the USPTO | deceptive-element/ordinary-trademark-infringement-recast-as-fraud | Although the owners of “FLAVOR SNOW” and Southern Snow .claimed a trademark in “SILVER FOX” by affixing a “TM” to the term in promotional materials, SnoWizard began using the “SILVER FOX” trademark in commerce without authorization, claiming it as a “SnoWizard Original.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [9199:9470] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.Likewise, the Court notes that Plaintiffs were unable to cite any cases where patent or trademark infringement constituted mail or wire fraud, for purposes of the predicate act requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [38627:38816] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.Johnson Electric suggests that ordinary infringement claims cannot constitute mail or wire fraud because there is no deceptive element, which is required to establish a scheme to defraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [39149:39336] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995.Thus, ordinary trademark infringement in conjunction with fraud on the USPTO cannot constitute the scheme to defraud required by the mail and wire fraud statutes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_912.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/912/0404-01; Unicode character offsets [40022:40184] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6eaf3112cfa04086c45f52ab5af031aa20d0fa445b4daf174c56aeda76084995. |
| /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsThe lie on the application is taken as alleged; the court decides only that its object was not property. It adds, as a policy observation, that a single false statement on a mailed application should not be a federal mail fraud. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved Sufficiency upheld after a bench trial. The scheme is the nationwide advertising programme taken as a whole; "seller's puffing" defence rejected because the deception was substantial and buyers bought sight unseen. Industry custom and competitors' advertising held immaterial to whether there was a scheme (the statute's standard governs) - an evidentiary ruling, see misfit. | fraudulent-inducement/mail-order-land-sale-brochure-portraying-nonexistent-planned-community | Lustiger caused the company to advertise its property in newspapers and other publications throughout the country. Those who answered were sent an “Investor’s Kit,” consisting of a thirty-two page color brochure, a “Fact Sheet,” and a land reservation form.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [2934:3191] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.In fact, no city or community of residents, or building improvements of any kind, were in existence up to March, 1963, except for a small field office used by the company and a temporary dwelling occupied by a guide and caretaker.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [14033:14263] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.There was no plan to construct or provide housing or shopping facilities, or provide the utilities necessary to the development of a planned city or community.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [14358:14517] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.Moreover, here prospective buyers were expected to rely almost entirely on the advertising materials in making their purchase. Only a few buyers saw the property before signing the purchase contract.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [17170:17369] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.Although the accompanying “Fact Sheet” warned that no streets were presently available, prospective customers were not told that the terrain in many of the units made actual construction of a road physically impracticable or unreasonably expensive.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [12015:12263] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.If a scheme is devised with the intent to defraud, and the mails are used in executing the scheme, the fact that there is no misrepresentation of a single existing fact is immaterial. It is only necessary to prove that it is a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive, and that the mail service of the United States was used and intended to be used in the execution of the scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [15929:16308] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.While it is true that exaggeration within reasonable bounds under the circumstances will not support a finding of a scheme to defraud, a substantial deception, as evidenced here, is sufficient.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [16976:17169] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.The trial court was warranted in finding that the use of the words “Lake Mead City” in the subdivision name, taken in conjunction with the phrases quoted above were intended to mislead prospective customers into believing that a planned city or community had already been started and was rapidly growing.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [13728:14032] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448.We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Lustiger intentionally engaged in a scheme to defraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_386.jsonl#/f2d/386/0132-01; Unicode character offsets [18203:18327] (end exclusive); SHA-256 984d9591aa1d590044854cc6ba2d3627f236458be86a3fceb9b89b65a6836448. |
| /f2d/664/0161-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved The contested point is the SCOPE (endpoint and victim) of the scheme, not its existence: the defendant argued the scheme ended when he sold at wholesale; the court holds the jury could find it extended to the retail purchasers who relied on the altered odometers. That scope finding is what makes the later title mailings count. The cuts-against line is the fact behind the defendant's overbreadth argument (he dealt only with dealers). | fraudulent-inducement/odometer-rollback-wholesaler-defrauding-downstream-retail-buyers | The evidence at trial established odometer rollbacks on thirteen automobiles purchased by Wisconsin residents from retail dealers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_664.jsonl#/f2d/664/0161-01; Unicode character offsets [990:1120] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f61558d6d9d4966e7953a5e92fe1d9854c9d6b5b221f27d0c6da8139133e1ae4.The evidence at trial indicated that the higher wholesale cost of automobiles resulting from the odometer tampering was reflected in higher prices at the retail level.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_664.jsonl#/f2d/664/0161-01; Unicode character offsets [3723:3890] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f61558d6d9d4966e7953a5e92fe1d9854c9d6b5b221f27d0c6da8139133e1ae4.All these automobiles had been sold to retail dealers by Galloway, primarily through the Greater Chicago Auto Auction, although a few had been sold directly to a dealer whom Galloway had come to know personally.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_664.jsonl#/f2d/664/0161-01; Unicode character offsets [1121:1332] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f61558d6d9d4966e7953a5e92fe1d9854c9d6b5b221f27d0c6da8139133e1ae4.The starting point for analysis of a conviction under the mail fraud statute is determining the scope of the alleged scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_664.jsonl#/f2d/664/0161-01; Unicode character offsets [3383:3507] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f61558d6d9d4966e7953a5e92fe1d9854c9d6b5b221f27d0c6da8139133e1ae4.we find that the jury had sufficient evidence from which it could conclude, as the court below noted, “that the defendant’s scheme was not complete until the cars had been resold to retail customers in Wisconsin.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_664.jsonl#/f2d/664/0161-01; Unicode character offsets [4149:4362] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f61558d6d9d4966e7953a5e92fe1d9854c9d6b5b221f27d0c6da8139133e1ae4. |
| /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; count: Count 13 (Hugo property loan application to GSM); subject: count=Count 13 (Hugo property loan application to GSM) Unsuccessful scheme (lender caught the fraud; no loan funded) still treated as a scheme to defraud. CAVEAT: thin authority. The whole ruling is one sentence on a point the defendant did not contest ("Lo does not contend otherwise"), in a count whose conviction was reversed for want of proof of mailing; basis is [conceded] although the court adds that the evidence was "more than sufficient". | fraudulent-inducement/broker-submits-falsified-mortgage-loan-application | Lo then prepared new loan applications which she submitted to Greater Suburban Mortgage (“GSM”) for the purchase of the Hugo property. The new applications contained numerous false statements about the Bau-tistas’ financial circumstances.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01; Unicode character offsets [5082:5320] (end exclusive); SHA-256 928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61.This time, the lending institution discovered the fraud in its review of the application and notified Lo that it would not grant the loan.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01; Unicode character offsets [5321:5459] (end exclusive); SHA-256 928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61.Mail fraud includes two general elements: first, the government must prove that a defendant devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud a victim of his money or property; second, it must prove that in executing the scheme, the defendant made use of or caused the use of the mails.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01; Unicode character offsets [5996:6282] (end exclusive); SHA-256 928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61.There was more than sufficient evidence to prove that the scheme was fraudulent, and Lo does not contend otherwise.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_231.jsonl#/f3d/231/0471-01; Unicode character offsets [6348:6463] (end exclusive); SHA-256 928e2918c9b3913eacca99122eeea1b3ae403267d7e5224bd39e0afe24020b61. |
| /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / meritsThe bid-rigging plan is taken as alleged ("although unethical"); only its object was in issue. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services); count: Count IV; theory: admissibility of shakedowns of other developers, after the charged mailing and without the defendant present, as direct proof of the scheme; subject: count=Count IV; theory=admissibility of shakedowns of other developers, after the charged mailing and without the defendant present, as direct proof of the scheme Evidentiary ruling, not a sufficiency ruling: the scheme is not bounded by the date of the charged mailing, so later incidents involving other office staff are direct evidence of it (subject to Rule 403 and to being the same scheme). The refused-payment incident mattered because it showed the "donation" was a quid pro quo. The existence of the scheme itself was found by the jury and not challenged. | scope-of-scheme/uncharged-later-shakedowns-by-co-schemers | A few days after that incident, Greer went to Troutman’s office and spoke with Boone, who informed him that for a $10,000 cash payment he would be allowed to proceed without a permit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [5458:5641] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Boone then stated that in order to obtain the letter Greer would have to pay $15,000 to the office.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [6517:6616] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Hall informed Plomin that she had to make a campaign contribution of $1,500 in order to obtain a letter of support from Troutman. Plomin ultimately decided against paying that money, and she did not obtain the letter of support.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [8288:8516] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Once the checks were cashed, Pattison received the letter of support from Troutman.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [9424:9507] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.The mailing is a jurisdictional prerequisite which must be satisfied in order to invoke federal criminal prosecution, but it does not constitute an endpoint beyond which the government may not provide evidence of the scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [23080:23304] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Moreover, the definition of the scheme itself is a limiting principle, in that only evidence of the same scheme as opposed to a related or distinct scheme, is admissible.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [24042:24212] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Because that evidence was directly relevant to establish a critical component of the scheme, it was admissible as direct evidence of the offense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [25783:25928] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8. |
| /us/527/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsStated as a step in the materiality reasoning (not everything in common-law fraud is incorporated): actual reliance and damage are not elements because the statute punishes the scheme, not the completed fraud. Not applied to Neder's facts. Also restates Durland: the statute reaches promises as to the future, beyond common-law false pretenses. | common-law-fraud-incorporation/reliance-and-damage-not-required | The common-law requirements of “justifiable reli-anee” and “damages,” for example, plainly have no place in the federal fraud statutes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_527.jsonl#/us/527/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [37212:37347] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e0a4af797b1293eb68136f29db1ed43b57bd1627cee70ab67e5a05c81288e673.By prohibiting the “scheme to defraud,” rather than the completed fraud, the elements of reliance and damage would clearly be inconsistent with the statutes Congress enacted.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_527.jsonl#/us/527/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [37779:37953] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e0a4af797b1293eb68136f29db1ed43b57bd1627cee70ab67e5a05c81288e673. |
| /us/531/0012-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsThe false statements in the license applications (concealed true ownership) are recited as charged; whether they amounted to a scheme to defraud was not reviewed once the property object failed. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
The essential elements of mail and wire fraud are (1) a scheme to defraud, (2) money or property as the object of the scheme, and (3) use of the mails or wires to further the scheme.
The essential elements of mail and wire fraud are (1) a scheme to defraud, (2) money or property as the object of the scheme, and (3) use of the mails or wires to further the scheme.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/146; Unicode character offsets [14885:15067] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21fd65e23cb26bfd8dd04bb2c3c024b1d035709f3309d0b90f65bca9c7025acc.A fraudulent plan, including a deliberately false promise, is required; an unsuccessful scheme can qualify. Do not convert a mere breach of contract into fraudulent intent.
interpretation
By prohibiting the “scheme to defraud,” rather than the completed fraud, the elements of reliance and damage would clearly be inconsistent with the statutes Congress enacted.
/us/527/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
By prohibiting the “scheme to defraud,” rather than the completed fraud, the elements of reliance and damage would clearly be inconsistent with the statutes Congress enacted.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_527.jsonl#/us/527/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [37779:37953] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e0a4af797b1293eb68136f29db1ed43b57bd1627cee70ab67e5a05c81288e673.A fraudulent plan, including a deliberately false promise, is required; an unsuccessful scheme can qualify. Do not convert a mere breach of contract into fraudulent intent.
not-required
Actual victim reliance or completed economic damage (Neder); materiality and the statutory communication remain required.
No source quotation recorded.