AND · 18usc1343:property
Judicial construction of the statutory property/object requirement: the property target must be an object of the scheme, not merely an incidental expense of exercising regulatory power. Traditional intangible property can qualify; intangible regulatory interests and a free-standing right to control economic decisions cannot. Kousisis preserves Ciminelli and Kelly while rejecting a net-economic-loss requirement.
Exact element source
money or propertySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1343; Unicode character offsets [142:159] (end exclusive); SHA-256 944569d18f6d3624ae87dde151ee823f6cf078faa69c6d3e59fb832bc1aaa933.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:United States v. Hasson — 333 F.3d 1264 (2003) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| money-or-entitlement provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether money paid, or money legally due to the victim, is the property object of the scheme, regardless of net loss. | 2 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 2 | Pasquantino v. United States — 544 U.S. 349 (2005) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Kousisis v. United States — 605 U.S. 114 (2025) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Kousisis v. United States — 605 U.S. 114 (2025) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| regulatory-interest provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the thing sought is "property" in the victim's hands or only the government's regulatory interest (Cleveland, Kelly). | 2 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 0 | 1 | United States v. Evans — 844 F.2d 36 (1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988 — not · law (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Evans — 844 F.2d 36 (1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988 — not · pleaded (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| right-to-control provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether depriving the victim of information or control over its assets is a property deprivation. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | United States v. Lebedev — 932 F.3d 40 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| victim-deprivation provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the property must be obtained from, or lost by, the person deceived. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (2). Excluded context examples:United States v. Baker — 923 F.3d 390 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/lower-court · not counted United States v. Baker — 923 F.3d 390 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Evans — 844 F.2d 36 (1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988 — not · law (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; theory: alienation theory: the United States' right to veto retransfer of U.S.-made or licensed arms as "property"; subject: theory=alienation theory: the United States' right to veto retransfer of U.S.-made or licensed arms as "property" Decided on the assumption (not decided) that the indictment alleges this theory at all. The interest is "ancillary to a regulation, not to property": no possessory right ever, no effect on title, enforcement only by statutory sanctions on future sales; rule of lenity applied. The court does not say the Government never has property in limits it imposes on property use. | government-veto-over-resale-of-goods-it-does-not-own | These restrictions are created either by a statutorily-required clause in the contract between the United States seller and the original foreign buyer, see 22 U.S.C. § 2753(a)(2), or by regulation, see, e.g., 22 C.F.R. §§ 123.9(a), 123.10(d).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [6068:6310] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.However, the United States will never have the right to possess the weapons involved in this case, even if a foreign government violates the resale restrictions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [18563:18724] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.The government concedes that the violations have no effect on the purchaser’s title or on the seller’s right to profits from the illegal sale.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [18892:19034] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.A law prohibiting a particular use of a commodity that the government does not use or possess ordinarily does not create a property right.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [22042:22180] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.That the right at issue here has not been treated as a property right in other contexts, and that there are many basic differences between it and common-law property are relevant considerations in deciding whether the right is property under the federal fraud statutes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [18062:18331] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.Because of the substantial differences between international arms sales and common-law property transactions, we conclude that the United States’s interest in regulating foreign resales of arms is not a property right for wire and mail fraud purposes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [23586:23837] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c. |
| United States v. Evans — 844 F.2d 36 (1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988 — not · pleaded (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; theory: the arms and the sales commissions as the money or property obtained; subject: theory=the arms and the sales commissions as the money or property obtained The indictment named as objects the weapons (owned by foreign countries) and commissions (payable by the buying governments). The court expressly declines to decide the general question whether the deceived party must always be the one who loses property; it rests on McNally's statement that the Government is protected only as property-holder, and the United States, the only party deceived, alleged no property of its own. | victim-property-interest/deceived-government-owns-neither-goods-nor-money | The closest it comes is when it half-heartedly argues that the indictment implies that the United States owned all of the rights in at least some of the weapons at some point, since certain types of weapons legally may be sold only by the government.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [13722:13972] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.Specifically, defendants pointed out that the “property” involved— the weapons — is not alleged to belong to the United States; evidently, some of the weapons were sold directly by their manufacturers to foreign governments, and even those that may have once belonged to the United States are now owned by foreign countries.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [5054:5378] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.Moreover, the “money” involved — the commissions — was to be paid by the recipient governments, not by the United States.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [5379:5500] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.However, the government also stated at oral argument that it would not attempt to prove its ownership at trial.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [13973:14084] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.To win, the government must show that it had some property interest in the arms.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [13619:13699] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.The point is not that the defendant must receive the same money or property that the deceived party lost, but only that the party deceived must lose money or property.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [12874:13041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c.Thus, unless we accept the alienation theory, the judgment below should be affirmed under the interpretation of the federal fraud statutes previously set out.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_844.jsonl#/f2d/844/0036-01; Unicode character offsets [14363:14521] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fa5732cb4799e9e5b3ca064860af71674fc030739b35dda6d139659dbd32cb4c. |
| United States v. Hasson — 333 F.3d 1264 (2003) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 — not reached (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsThe object was customers' purchase money; not in issue. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Baker — 923 F.3d 390 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; theory: district court's denial of the post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal; subject: theory=district court's denial of the post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal The district court's sufficiency ruling, reported with evident approval but reviewed on appeal only as an instruction question. | deprivation-of-victim/investors-induced-to-buy-or-hold-stock-by-false-company-statements | The court explained that "substantial evidence was presented to show the misleading and fraudulent statements made by Baker induced investment in ArthroCare," and that "a rational trier of fact could have found the goal of the scheme ... was to deprive investors of money they otherwise would have possessed."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [29159:29468] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5.The district court denied the motion, concluding that "the focus" of a scheme to defraud is on "depriving the victim of property for some benefit" and that there is "no requirement that a defendant must directly gain or possess [the victim's] property."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [28905:29158] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5. |
| United States v. Baker — 923 F.3d 390 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits theory: jury instruction: scheme "intended to deprive another of money or property, or bring about some financial gain to the person engaged in the scheme"; subject: theory=jury instruction: scheme "intended to deprive another of money or property, or bring about some financial gain to the person engaged in the scheme" De novo review of an instruction and of the indictment, not of sufficiency. Investors bought or held stock on the market; the CEO's gain came through bonuses and stock options, not from the investors' hands. The court rejects a requirement that the victim's loss be the defendant's gain. The two fact lines are the court's supporting remark about the trial evidence, not a sufficiency holding. | deprivation-of-victim/no-need-to-obtain-property-directly-from-victim | The evidence at trial showed that Baker did just that: (1) He made false statements to investors and potential investors to induce them to hold onto or buy ArthroCare stock; (2) he knew the statements did not accurately reflect ArthroCare's business model or revenue projections; and (3) the scheme was intended to benefit Baker via bonuses and appreciation of his own stock options.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [35842:36225] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5.By inducing investments in ArthroCare, the scheme affected the victims' property rights by wrongfully leaving them "without money that they otherwise would have possessed."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [36226:36398] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5.Section 1343 does not require an intent to obtain property directly from a victim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [32736:32818] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5.Skilling did not impose a "mirror image" requirement for wire fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [30436:30504] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5.The jury instructions here allowed for a conviction if Baker intended to deceive the victims out of their money for his own financial benefit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [35699:35841] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5.The jury instructions were not erroneous.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0390-01; Unicode character offsets [36399:36440] (end exclusive); SHA-256 56c8a4a8edbb926a6e88073c3ca4cd1e36966785d95d343de83140e602ffb5f5. |
| United States v. Lebedev — 932 F.3d 40 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Traditional money or property as an object | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Yuri Lebedev; count: wire fraud (Coin.mx Bitcoin exchange disguised as "Collectables Club"); subject: party=Yuri Lebedev; count=wire fraud (Coin.mx Bitcoin exchange disguised as "Collectables Club") Lebedev's only sufficiency argument on the wire-fraud count was that deceiving the institutions about the nature of the business did not harm or risk harming them; rejected under the (pre-Ciminelli) right-to-control doctrine. | card-issuing banks deprived of merchant-identity information relevant to fraud and regulatory risk | Heinrich testified that Chase decides whether to process pending credit card transactions based in part on information it receives about the merchant. Chase evaluates regulatory risk, including potential fines for doing business that is illegal, as well as economic risk posed by fraudulent transactions, and considers transactions with money services or money-transmitting businesses to carry a higher risk of fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [9596:10013] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa.The evidence at trial demonstrated that Coin.mx was a money service business that was both unlawful and carried a higher risk of fraudulent transactions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [10014:10167] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa."Since a defining feature of most property is the right to control the asset in question, we have recognized that the property interests protected by the ... wire fraud statute[ ] include the interest of a victim in controlling his or her own assets."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [8583:8834] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa.On this basis, a reasonable jury could conclude that Lebedev deprived the financial institutions of the right to control their assets by misrepresenting potentially valuable economic information.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [10434:10629] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa. |
| Pasquantino v. United States — 544 U.S. 349 (2005) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved An uncollected tax debt is property in the taxing government's hands (money legally due = money in hand); distinguished from Cleveland's purely regulatory interest in an unissued licence. That the victim is a foreign sovereign makes no difference. | entitlement-to-money/foreign-government-excise-tax-evaded-by-smuggling | Uncontested evidence at trial showed that Canadian taxes then due on alcohol purchased in the United States and transported to Canada were approximately double the liquor’s purchase. price.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [1527:1716] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.Had petitioners complied with this legal obligation, they would have paid money to Canada.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [5745:5835] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.Here, by contrast, the Government alleged and proved that petitioners’ scheme aimed at depriving Canada of money to which it was entitled by law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [8324:8469] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.Valuable entitlements like these are “property” as that term ordinarily is employed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [5362:5446] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.The right to be paid money has long been thought to be a species of property.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [6239:6316] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693.Taking the latter element first, Canada’s right to uncollected excise taxes on the liquor petitioners imported into Canada is “property” in its hands.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0349-01; Unicode character offsets [4982:5132] (end exclusive); SHA-256 320769dc88fb8a8fa39aac524a6fd97eed9d98adf063295b8996aa906e8ac693. |
| Kousisis v. United States — 605 U.S. 114 (2025) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; theory: fraudulent inducement: contract payments obtained although the victim received work of full economic value; subject: theory=fraudulent inducement: contract payments obtained although the victim received work of full economic value Money paid under the contracts was the object of the scheme even though the painting was done to the agency's satisfaction; frustrating the disadvantaged-business rule was only a downstream byproduct, so the Kelly/Cleveland regulatory-power limit and the rejected right-to-control theory (Ciminelli) are not engaged. The no-net-economic-loss rule the Court applies here is recorded in the next `property` block. | money-as-object/public-contract-payments-for-fully-performed-work | PennDOT, satisfed with Alpha's paint and repair work, paid it accordingly. By the time the last coat of paint had dried, Alpha had turned a gross proft of over $20 mil- lion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [15400:15574] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Their goal? To “obtai[n] money” (tens of millions of dollars) from Penn- DOT.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [22652:22729] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Alpha and Kousisis moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that because their paintwork met PennDOT's expectations, PennDOT had received the full economic beneft of its bargain.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [15918:16098] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Nothing suggests that they concocted their scheme with the goal of thwarting Penn- DOT's disadvantaged-business initiative.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [44636:44759] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Obtaining the victim's money or property must have been the “aim,” not an “incidental byproduct,” of the defendant's fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [20152:20275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.In short, the wire fraud statute is agnostic about economic loss. The statute does not so much as mention loss, let alone require it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [23857:23990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.But if, as here, the fraudster seeks to induce the Gov- ernment into a transfer of its money or property, that loss is suffcient to sustain a fraud conviction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [44015:44174] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a. |
| Kousisis v. United States — 605 U.S. 114 (2025) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — not reached (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits theory: rejected requirement: net economic loss to the victim (or a purpose to cause it); subject: theory=rejected requirement: net economic loss to the victim (or a purpose to cause it) The rule of the case, stated as a construction of the money-or-property requirement: when money or property is the object of the scheme, the statute does not require that the victim suffer, or that the defendant seek, a net economic loss. It is a rule about `property`, not a separate mens rea ruling. Kept as its own not-reached / rule-announced block only so that the variant can name the rule; its application to these facts is the satisfied `property` block above. | money-or-property-object/no-net-economic-loss-required | Instead, a defendant violates § 1343 by scheming to “obtain” the victim's “money or property,” regardless of whether he seeks to leave the victim economically worse off.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [23991:24160] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Obtaining the victim's money or property must have been the “aim,” not an “incidental byproduct,” of the defendant's fraud.
Kousisis v. United States — 605 U.S. 114 (2025) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Obtaining the victim's money or property must have been the “aim,” not an “incidental byproduct,” of the defendant's fraud.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [20152:20275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Judicial construction of the statutory property/object requirement: the property target must be an object of the scheme, not merely an incidental expense of exercising regulatory power. Traditional intangible property can qualify; intangible regulatory interests and a free-standing right to control economic decisions cannot. Kousisis preserves Ciminelli and Kelly while rejecting a net-economic-loss requirement.
interpretation
In short, the wire fraud statute is agnostic about economic loss. The statute does not so much as mention loss, let alone require it.
Kousisis v. United States — 605 U.S. 114 (2025) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 (18usc1343: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In short, the wire fraud statute is agnostic about economic loss. The statute does not so much as mention loss, let alone require it.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_605.jsonl#/us/605/114; Unicode character offsets [23857:23990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fafd32698ec39e27fdd3e9010c70c21801f2f3a822702b3632e487bec94666a.Judicial construction of the statutory property/object requirement: the property target must be an object of the scheme, not merely an incidental expense of exercising regulatory power. Traditional intangible property can qualify; intangible regulatory interests and a free-standing right to control economic decisions cannot. Kousisis preserves Ciminelli and Kelly while rejecting a net-economic-loss requirement.
not-required
Intent to cause net pecuniary loss where material deception targets a transfer of traditional property.
No source quotation recorded.