AND · 18usc1343:materiality
Judge-made incorporation of common-law fraud, not an express word in this statute. Kousisis leaves unresolved the parties' competing formulations of the materiality standard; it does not adopt an essence-of-the-bargain test as an additional universal element.
Exact element source
false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promisesSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1343; Unicode character offsets [172:231] (end exclusive); SHA-256 944569d18f6d3624ae87dde151ee823f6cf078faa69c6d3e59fb832bc1aaa933.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| objective-characteristics/grade-weight-authenticity-and-provenance-of-goods-misstated | 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 | |
| uncontested/contract-condition-labelled-material-breach | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 | Material deception | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved | objective-characteristics/grade-weight-authenticity-and-provenance-of-goods-misstated | The government established that Hasson repeatedly misrepresented the carat weight, color grading, and clarity grading of gems; misrepresented semi-precious gems, synthetic gems, or simulants as natural gems and diamonds; misrepresented stones that had been color- or clarity-treated as natural stones; and misrepresented the history or provenance of items sold.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [9207:9568] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.In sales to Aben and Joan Johnson, Hasson misrepresented the type of gems or stones in 314 items and the history and provenance of at least 80 items and gems.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [39782:39940] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.A material misrepresentation is one having a natural tendency to influence, or capable of influencing, the decision maker to whom it is addressed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [8396:8542] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859.The record in this case is replete with evidence of material misrepresentations regarding the physical and objective characteristics of the gems and jewelry sold.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_333.jsonl#/f3d/333/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [9044:9206] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0b48e223f26a65a380a150f77101da14ca89689355c39f63faa2a3def0f80859. |
| /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 | Material deception | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 | Material deception | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded CAVEAT: uncontested point; the Court made no determination of materiality on these facts and left the governing standard open. Materiality of these misrepresentations was not contested, so the element is met only by concession. The governing standard (traditional reasonable-person/known-importance test vs. the Government's essence-of-the-bargain test) is expressly left open; the Court stresses that materiality, not economic loss or "uniqueness", is what limits the fraudulent-inducement theory. | uncontested/contract-condition-labelled-material-breach | Failing to comply with this requirement would consti- tute “a material breach” and could “result in [contract] termi- nation.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [13706:13832] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.For now, it is enough to reiterate “that materiality of falsehood is an element of ”— and thus a limit on—the federal fraud statutes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [42072:42205] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.We need not settle the debate here, however, because Alpha and Kousisis have not contested that their misrepresentations were material.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [41936:42071] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Accordingly, we hold that materiality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes.
/us/527/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
Accordingly, we hold that materiality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_527.jsonl#/us/527/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [38141:38269] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e0a4af797b1293eb68136f29db1ed43b57bd1627cee70ab67e5a05c81288e673.Judge-made incorporation of common-law fraud, not an express word in this statute. Kousisis leaves unresolved the parties' competing formulations of the materiality standard; it does not adopt an essence-of-the-bargain test as an additional universal element.
interpretation
We need not settle the debate here, however, because Alpha and Kousisis have not contested that their misrepresentations were material.
/us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025
We need not settle the debate here, however, because Alpha and Kousisis have not contested that their misrepresentations were material.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [41936:42071] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Judge-made incorporation of common-law fraud, not an express word in this statute. Kousisis leaves unresolved the parties' competing formulations of the materiality standard; it does not adopt an essence-of-the-bargain test as an additional universal element.