A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
18usc1341:property-fraud
scheme & property & materiality & intent & mails & furtheranceCore ordinary property-fraud offense; all elements require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The separately enumerated counterfeit/spurious-article limb of section 1341 is not modeled by this claim. Section 1346 honest-services fraud is a separate cross-referenced theory, not a way to label every intangible interest property. Penalty enhancements and ancillary liability are outside this core catalogue.
Constraints
Identify sufficient domestic conduct when a cross-border scheme is alleged
Second Circuit domestic-application holding in a civil RICO case; do not replace ordinary furtherance with this core-component formulation in every domestic prosecution.
Law modes, protocols and effects
law
Law kind: substantive
Statute text with element anchors
Overlapping highlights link to the first element; the anchor key links every associated element. All offsets refer to unchanged source text.
§1341. Frauds and swindles Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 763 ; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §34, 63 Stat. 94 ; Pub. L. 91–375, §(6)(j)(11), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 778 ; Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, §961(i), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 500 ; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, §2504(h), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4861 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXV, §250006, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2087 , 2147; Pub. L. 107–204, title IX, §903(a), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 805 ; Pub. L. 110–179, §4, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2557 .)All element anchor links
- Knowing participation with intent to defraud — offsets [36:73]
- Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim — offsets [78:107]
- Scheme or artifice to defraud — offsets [78:107]
- Traditional money or property as an object — offsets [126:143]
- Material deception — offsets [156:215]
- Mailing for execution of the scheme — offsets [507:582]
- Statutory mailing or carrier act — offsets [584:650]
- Statutory mailing or carrier act — offsets [652:726]
- Statutory mailing or carrier act — offsets [728:866]
- Statutory mailing or carrier act — offsets [868:924]
- Statutory mailing or carrier act — offsets [926:1141]
Element outline
- AND Scheme or artifice to defraud
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.
5 merits instance blocks; 5 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 4 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 40 Used only in non-merits blocks (4).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Henry — 29 F.3d 112 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedKanter v. Barr — 919 F.3d 437 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: PASS (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_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. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:Neder v. United States — 527 U.S. 1 (1999) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: common-law-fraud-incorporation/reliance-and-damage-not-requireddeception-requirement
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the conduct involves deception at all, as opposed to a mere legal wrong. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 Used only in non-merits blocks (2).
Excluded context examples:Southern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. — 912 F. Supp. 2d 404 (2012) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: deceptive-element/ordinary-trademark-infringement-recast-as-fraudSouthern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. — 912 F. Supp. 2d 404 (2012) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: misrepresentation-of-legal-rights/asserting-intellectual-property-rights-against-competitorsfalse-promise
provisional; 0 observed casesA promise made as part of a fraudulent plan; later nonperformance alone does not establish fraud. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot fraudulent-inducement
provisional; 6 observed casesWhether false representations made to induce a transaction constitute a scheme to defraud. 5
Satisfied 5; not satisfied 0; excluded context 15 Lustiger v. United States — 386 F.2d 132 (1967) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: mail-order-land-sale-brochure-portraying-nonexistent-planned-communityUnited States v. Galloway — 664 F.2d 161 (1981) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: odometer-rollback-wholesaler-defrauding-downstream-retail-buyersUnited States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: broker-submits-falsified-mortgage-loan-applicationUnited States v. Seng Xiong — 914 F.3d 1154 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · background/lower-court · not counted
Pattern: donations solicited for a fictitious UN- and US-approved Hmong homeland, with promised shares in the future government's surplusscope-of-scheme
provisional; provisional (1 case)Which acts belong to the charged scheme. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/procedural · not counted
Pattern: uncharged-later-shakedowns-by-co-schemers - AND Traditional money or property as an object
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. Its holding applies to the identical mail-fraud language (605 U.S. 114, 121 n.2).
8 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 3 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 30 Used only in non-merits blocks (3).
Excluded context examples:Lustiger v. United States — 386 F.2d 132 (1967) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_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. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:Nijhawan v. Holder — 557 U.S. 29 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · comparator/merits · not counted
Pattern: loss-amount/no-statutory-loss-thresholdbargained-for-exchange
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the victim is deprived of property when it received what it paid for. 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: bargained-for-payment/wages-for-services-actually-performedintangible-expectancy
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether an expectancy not yet vested is property. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 Used only in non-merits blocks (2).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Henry — 29 F.3d 112 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — satisfied · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/dissent · not counted
Pattern: fair-opportunity-to-bid-for-contract-not-yet-awardedUnited States v. Henry — 29 F.3d 112 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: fair-opportunity-to-bid-for-contract-not-yet-awardedmoney-or-entitlement
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether money paid, or money legally due to the victim, is the property object of the scheme, regardless of net loss. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 United States v. Hird — 913 F.3d 332 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: ticket-fixing to obviate traffic-court judgments that would impose statutory fines and costs due to city and stateregulatory-interest
provisional; 3 observed casesWhether the thing sought is "property" in the victim's hands or only the government's regulatory interest (Cleveland, Kelly). 4
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 4; excluded context 12 United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: regulatory-cost/routine-cost-of-processing-one-applicationUnited States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: government-license/unissued-permit-in-hands-of-stateCleveland v. United States — 531 U.S. 12 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not · law (18usc1341: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: victim-property/thing-obtained-is-property-only-in-recipients-handsCleveland v. United States — 531 U.S. 12 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not · law (18usc1341: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: victim-property/unissued-state-license-in-regulators-handsSouthern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. — 912 F. Supp. 2d 404 (2012) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: government-license/patent-or-trademark-registration-obtained-by-false-statementsright-to-control
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether depriving the victim of information or control over its assets is a property deprivation. 2
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 11 United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: control-over-who-receives-budgeted-wagesUnited States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: employer-control-over-whom-it-hiresUnited States v. Henry — 29 F.3d 112 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/procedural · not counted
Pattern: theory-not-charged-in-indictment - AND Material deception
Judge-made incorporation of common-law fraud, not an express word in this statute. Petlechkov supplies the Sixth Circuit's ordinary-prudence formulation, not a uniform national definition. 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.
3 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 5 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 50 Used only in non-merits blocks (5).
Excluded context examples:Southern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. — 912 F. Supp. 2d 404 (2012) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_procedural
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:Neder v. United States — 527 U.S. 1 (1999) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: common-law-fraud-incorporation/materiality-omitted-from-jury-instructionhalf-truth
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether a literally true statement that omits qualifying facts is a material misrepresentation. 2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 Lustiger v. United States — 386 F.2d 132 (1967) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: literally-true-advertising-omitting-qualifying-factsLustiger v. United States — 386 F.2d 132 (1967) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: literally-true-advertising-omitting-qualifying-factsreasonable-person-standard
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the misrepresentation would matter to a person of ordinary prudence, and whether the victim's own care is relevant. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 U.S. v. Petlechkov — 922 F.3d 762 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: false claim to be a vendor of a high-volume shipper, made by phone to the carrier's account manager to obtain the customer's discount - AND Knowing participation with intent to defraud
Judicial construction of the scheme language requires fraudulent intent, distinct from negligence or contract breach. A deliberate material deception aimed at obtaining the victim's property suffices without intent to leave the victim economically worse off. Earlier intent-to-harm formulations must be read subject to Kousisis.
4 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 3 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 30 Used only in non-merits blocks (3).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Henry — 29 F.3d 112 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_pleading
accepted; provisional (1 case)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. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:Southern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. — 912 F. Supp. 2d 404 (2012) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — not · pleaded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: particularity/lapsed-safety-certification-sticker-still-displayedbreach-versus-fraud
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether failure to perform a promise shows intent to defraud when it was made, or only a breach of contract. 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 United States v. Hagen — 917 F.3d 668 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: advance payment taken for grazing later not provided, where leased land sufficed for this customer's herd and performance was later offeredinferred-from-conduct
provisional; 4 observed casesWhether intent to defraud is inferred from the defendant's course of conduct. 3
Satisfied 3; not satisfied 0; excluded context 13 Lustiger v. United States — 386 F.2d 132 (1967) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: inferred-from-pattern-of-deception/refund-and-exchange-policy-offered-as-good-faithUnited States v. Hagen — 917 F.3d 668 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: contracting to graze 100 pairs on 40 leased acres, repeating the assurance of sufficient land to obtain a second advance payment, then going silentUnited States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: advertising goods and services the seller never planned to deliver; intent to harm beyond intent to deceive and obtain money not required after KousisisUnited States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/procedural · not counted
Pattern: inferred-knowledge/open-and-blatant-practice-in-defendants-office - AND Statutory mailing or carrier act
Alternative statutory acts are placing, depositing/causing deposit, taking/receiving, or knowingly causing delivery; they are not cumulative requirements. USPS use need not itself cross a state line; the alternative private/commercial carrier must meet the statutory interstate-carrier description. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1228–1229 (9th Cir. 1996), applies Pereira's construction of causation: personal mailing or specific intent to use the mails is unnecessary where ordinary-course use is known or reasonably foreseeable. The causation inquiry is distinct from whether the mailing executes the scheme; mere foreseeability of a mailing does not establish furtherance. Hubbard's conspiracy posture does not import agreement or overt-act elements here.
5 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 4 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 40 Used only in non-merits blocks (4).
Excluded context examples:Southern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. — 912 F. Supp. 2d 404 (2012) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Henry — 29 F.3d 112 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_whole
accepted; 2 observed casesThe 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. 2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 02 Lustiger v. United States — 386 F.2d 132 (1967) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: postal-service/stipulated-use-of-mails-in-sales-operationUnited States v. Runner — 143 F.4th 146 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: promotional letters mass-mailed to consumerscaused-by-third-party
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the defendant "caused" a mailing made by someone else because it was reasonably foreseeable (Pereira). 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 United States v. Galloway — 664 F.2d 161 (1981) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: postal-service/mailing-by-third-party-reasonably-foreseeable-to-defendantpostal-service
provisional; 0 observed casesSending or delivery by the Postal Service. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot private-carrier
provisional; 0 observed casesDeposit or delivery by a private or commercial interstate carrier, under the operative statutory language. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot proof-of-mailing
provisional; provisional (1 case)How the fact of a mailing is proved. 2
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 United States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not · no-evidence (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: postal-service/custom-and-practice-proof-of-document-never-shown-to-existUnited States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: postal-service/county-recorder-mails-recorded-deeds-to-parties - AND Mailing for execution of the scheme
Evaluate the mailing against the actual scope and completion of the scheme. Bridge, 553 U.S. 639, 647 (2008), states the substantive mail-fraud nexus while deciding a civil RICO case; its separate RICO injury requirements do not become mail-fraud elements. Lulling mailings can further an ongoing scheme, but Hagen rejected incidental letters after the charged scheme was complete; Gross found collection mailings within an ongoing kickback scheme at the indictment stage.
7 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 5 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 50 Used only in non-merits blocks (5).
Excluded context examples:Southern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. — 912 F. Supp. 2d 404 (2012) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2012 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Granberry — 725 F. Supp. 446 (1989) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedLustiger v. United States — 386 F.2d 132 (1967) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedafter-fruition
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether a communication sent after the schemer obtained the object still furthers the scheme. 2
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 02 United States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: lulling/routine-post-closing-deed-mailings-in-sham-saleUnited States v. Hagen — 917 F.3d 668 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (18usc1341: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: apology letters offering belated performance, mailed months after the victims' payments were received; lulling theory rejectedessential-step
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the mailing was incident to an essential part of the scheme, including a routine mailing by an innocent party on which the scheme's continuation depended (Schmuck). 2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 21 United States v. Galloway — 664 F.2d 161 (1981) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: integral-to-essential-transaction/title-application-mailed-by-innocent-dealer-to-complete-retail-saleUnited States v. Galloway — 664 F.2d 161 (1981) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: ongoing-scheme/successful-title-transfer-preserves-access-to-buyersUnited States v. Galloway — 664 F.2d 161 (1981) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — not · no-evidence (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/superseded · not counted
Pattern: integral-to-essential-transaction/title-application-mailed-by-innocent-dealer-to-complete-retail-saleUnited States v. Galloway — 664 F.2d 161 (1981) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — not · no-evidence (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/dissent · not counted
Pattern: integral-to-essential-transaction/title-application-mailed-by-innocent-dealer-to-complete-retail-salescheme-as-conceived
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the mailing was part of the execution of the scheme as the perpetrator conceived it at the time (Parr, Maze). 3
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 2; excluded context 01 United States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not · no-evidence (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: mailing-arising-from-separate-later-loanUnited States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not · no-evidence (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: straw-purchaser-deed-back-without-prior-planUnited States v. Chung Lo — 231 F.3d 471 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied · proved (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: straw-purchaser-deed-back-by-prior-understanding - AND Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim
Section 1346 supplies the intangible-right theory. Do not combine its different target with the property element above. Its bribery/kickback and fiduciary-duty limits require separate analysis; this boundary node is not a complete honest-services claim.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) bribery-or-kickback
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the conduct is a bribe or kickback, the core of honest-services fraud (Skilling). 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: bribery/payment-demanded-for-officials-letter-of-supportstatute-availability
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether § 1346 is in the case at all. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 Used only in non-merits blocks (2).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Henry — 29 F.3d 112 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/procedural · not counted
Pattern: temporal-reach/conduct-before-section-1346-effective-dateCleveland v. United States — 531 U.S. 12 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1341: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md)) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: section-1346/not-invoked-licensing-fraud