A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
- 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.
6 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) integral-to-essential-transaction/title-application-mailed-by-innocent-dealer-to-complete-retail-sale 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 21 /f2d/664/0161-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — satisfied Excluded context examples: /f2d/664/0161-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — applied/dissent, applied/superseded
lulling/routine-post-closing-deed-mailings-in-sham-sale 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied ongoing-scheme/successful-title-transfer-preserves-access-to-buyers 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/664/0161-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — satisfied scheme-as-conceived/mailing-arising-from-separate-later-loan 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not scheme-as-conceived/straw-purchaser-deed-back-by-prior-understanding 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied scheme-as-conceived/straw-purchaser-deed-back-without-prior-plan 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 50 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; /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — applied/merits; /f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — applied/merits
- 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
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) bribery/payment-demanded-for-officials-letter-of-support 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — satisfied section-1346/not-invoked-licensing-fraud 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/531/0012-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — rule-announced/merits
temporal-reach/conduct-before-section-1346-effective-date 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — background/procedural
- 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.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) inferred-from-pattern-of-deception/refund-and-exchange-policy-offered-as-good-faith 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied inferred-knowledge/open-and-blatant-practice-in-defendants-office 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — rule-announced/procedural
particularity/lapsed-safety-certification-sticker-still-displayed 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 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
Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 30 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/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — applied/merits; /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — background/merits
- 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.
4 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) postal-service Sending or delivery by the Postal Service. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot postal-service/county-recorder-mails-recorded-deeds-to-parties 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied postal-service/custom-and-practice-proof-of-document-never-shown-to-exist 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not postal-service/mailing-by-third-party-reasonably-foreseeable-to-defendant 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/664/0161-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981 — satisfied postal-service/stipulated-use-of-mails-in-sales-operation 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied private-carrier Deposit or delivery by a private or commercial interstate carrier, under the operative statutory language. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 40 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; /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
- 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.
2 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) common-law-fraud-incorporation/materiality-omitted-from-jury-instruction 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/527/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 — rule-announced/merits
half-truth/literally-true-advertising-omitting-qualifying-facts 2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — satisfied Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 50 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; /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — applied/merits; /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — applied/merits
- 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).
7 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) bargained-for-payment/wages-for-services-actually-performed 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not government-license/patent-or-trademark-registration-obtained-by-false-statements 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 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
government-license/unissued-permit-in-hands-of-state 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not intangible-expectancy/fair-opportunity-to-bid-for-contract-not-yet-awarded 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — background/dissent, background/merits
loss-amount/no-statutory-loss-threshold 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/557/0029-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — comparator/merits
regulatory-cost/routine-cost-of-processing-one-application 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not right-to-control/control-over-who-receives-budgeted-wages 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not right-to-control/employer-control-over-whom-it-hires 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f-supp/725/0446-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · 1989 — not right-to-control/theory-not-charged-in-indictment 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/29/0112-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994 — background/procedural
victim-property/thing-obtained-is-property-only-in-recipients-hands 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /us/531/0012-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not victim-property/unissued-state-license-in-regulators-hands 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /us/531/0012-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 30 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/386/0132-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967 — applied/merits; /f3d/231/0471-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — applied/merits; /f3d/628/0927-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — applied/merits
- 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.
3 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count 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 10 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 10 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 00 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 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot fraudulent-inducement/broker-submits-falsified-mortgage-loan-application 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /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 01 /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 01 /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 10 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 10 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 30 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
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.