A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
- AND Wire transmission for execution of scheme
The wire act must further the fraudulent scheme; proof of a scheme cannot substitute for proof of the charged transmission. Buncich was an honest-services prosecution: its transmission/furtherance holding applies to the common communication requirement, not as a substitute for the property-fraud claim's separate property and materiality conjuncts.
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) after-objective-obtained/call-arranging-payoff-and-concealment 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 — satisfied indictment-tracks-statute/wire-specifics-not-examined 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — satisfied payment-for-induced-sale/genuine-item-bought-on-false-resale-story 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 — satisfied payment-for-induced-sale/item-with-misstated-physical-characteristics 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 — satisfied 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/829/0286-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987 — background/merits; /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 — applied/merits; /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — 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.
3 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) fiduciary-duty/believed-agent-of-victim-was-undercover-officer 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 — satisfied public-official-bribery/legislator-paid-to-promote-private-ventures-with-agencies 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — satisfied undisclosed-conflict-of-interest/official-acts-beyond-own-decision-making-authority 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — satisfied Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 — applied/merits
- 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) contemplated-harm/bribe-to-supposed-insider-concealed-from-victim 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 — satisfied reckless-indifference/instruction-approved-on-plain-error-review 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — rule-announced/merits
vicarious-liability/executive-directed-scheme-and-approved-cover-statements 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — background/merits
Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 — applied/merits; /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — applied/merits
- AND Interstate or foreign transmission
The charged transmission must satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. Identify evidence of interstate routing, not simply the presence of a computer or telephone.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 60 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — applied/merits; /f-supp/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 — applied/merits; /f2d/829/0286-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987 — background/merits
- AND Material deception
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.
2 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) objective-characteristics/grade-weight-authenticity-and-provenance-of-goods-misstated 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /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 01 /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 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — 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.
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) deprivation-of-victim/investors-induced-to-buy-or-hold-stock-by-false-company-statements 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — applied/lower-court
deprivation-of-victim/no-need-to-obtain-property-directly-from-victim 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — rule-announced/merits
entitlement-to-money/foreign-government-excise-tax-evaded-by-smuggling 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — satisfied money-as-object/public-contract-payments-for-fully-performed-work 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — satisfied money-or-property-object/no-net-economic-loss-required 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — rule-announced/merits
regulatory-interest/government-veto-over-resale-of-goods-it-does-not-own 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f2d/844/0036-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988 — not victim-property-interest/deceived-government-owns-neither-goods-nor-money 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f2d/844/0036-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988 — not Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 — 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.
4 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) concealment-as-misrepresentation/undeclared-goods-smuggled-past-customs 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 11 /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — satisfied Excluded context examples: /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — applied/dissent
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/false-subcontractor-compliance-promise-to-win-public-contract 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /us/605/114 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2025 — satisfied fraudulent-inducement/misdescribed-goods-backed-by-sham-independent-verification 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 — satisfied fraudulent-transfer/sham-stock-sale-and-security-interest-to-defeat-judgment-creditor 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/829/0286-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987 — background/procedural
inchoate-scheme/factually-impossible-sting 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 — satisfied investor-deception/channel-stuffing-to-inflate-reported-revenue 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — applied/lower-court
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/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — applied/merits; /f2d/844/0036-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988 — applied/merits; /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 — applied/merits
- AND Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television
The defendant need not personally send the transmission. Boliaux affirmed a conviction where control of the dealership and payment system made the charged transmissions foreseeable; its quoted analysis is the district court reasoning expressly adopted on appeal. This is judicial construction of the statutory causation alternative. Foreseeability of wire use is distinct from proof that the charged transmission actually crossed state or national boundaries and furthered the scheme.
2 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) foreseeable-causation/intrastate-money-transfer-routed-through-out-of-state-computer 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/59/0517-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995 — applied/superseded
foreseeable-causation/victim-payment-wired-from-out-of-state-bank 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/333/1264-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003 — satisfied rule-9b-particularity/use-of-wires-alleged-on-information-and-belief 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/829/0286-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987 — background/procedural
telephone-orders/interstate-calls-to-buy-goods-for-smuggling 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /us/544/0349-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — satisfied 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-2d/562/0719-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2008 — applied/merits; /f-supp/957/0039-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1997 — applied/merits; /f3d/923/0390-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — applied/merits
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
18usc1343:property-fraud
scheme & property & materiality & intent & wire & furtherance & interstateCore property-fraud offense; all elements require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 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.