Source: law/NOTES-18usc1341.md
# Research notes — 18 U.S.C. § 1341 Rebuilt 2026-11-10 after rejecting the initial caption/fragment anchors. Scope: core property fraud, statutory communication nexus, and an explicit boundary to §1346. This is author research, not independent QA approval. ## Source and interpretation boundaries Canonical statute: `catalog/federal/title_18/section_1341/title18_sec1341_90fea3fd6f12/1341_frauds_and_swindles_whoever_having_devised_or_intending_0001/index.html`; IR `ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1341`, SHA1 `442adbb68ff66bd9cd71689fcff6ab675794f9e4`, 2199 Unicode characters. All text/rule offsets are exact end-exclusive Python character indices into the read-only IR. No source text was repaired or normalized. Court opinions with 60,000-character records may be truncated; only the stated windows/quoted portions are used. The statutory words supply scheme, money/property, conduct and execution purpose. Materiality, fraudulent intent's contours, traditional-property/object limitations, domestic-application analysis, and no-reliance/no-completed-damages rules are judicial constructions. The code's disjunctive wording does not eliminate the property target for ordinary fraud. Materiality is its own conjunct, not buried in scheme gloss. Kousisis rejects net-loss/intent-to-impoverish requirements without abolishing the property target or materiality. Private RICO injury, causation, remedies, penalties/enhancements, conspiracy, and aiding/abetting are not encoded as mail/wire elements. Section 1346 is cross-referenced as a distinct honest-services theory; its boundary node is not an asserted complete claim. ## Contextual corpus reading log The capped `cited_by()` list supplied Runner and the circuit/district candidates. Kousisis is listed for §1343 and expressly construes the shared mail/wire language. Neder was retrieved directly from canonical IR. Cases screened but rejected as main anchors included De Nieto (identity-theft/sentencing focus), Gorrell (tax-evasion appeal), and Freed (much of relevant discussion concerns derivative liability); procedural mention was insufficient. ### United States v. Runner (143 F.4th 146, 2025) - Pin: 143 F.4th 146 (2d Cir. 2025), §II.A–B. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f4th/volume_143/146/index.html); IR `/f4th/143/146`, SHA1 `dd8219912caf5b4d2c3e19cb64a91f8836f078ac`, chars=50564. - Read window `14410:23887`: Elements, materially deceptive scheme, and explicit rejection after Kousisis of the former inducement-only exemption. - Read window `25264:29265`: Psychic letters induced payment for promised individualized services and objects; sufficient deliberate deception for property transfer. - Read window `37768:42954`: Older quality/price and harm instructions were more favorable to the defendant; do not canonize their pre-Kousisis phrasing. ### Kousisis v. United States (605 U.S. 114, 2025) - Pin: 605 U.S. 114, 121–134 (2025), majority §§II.A–B. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/clus/volume_605/114/index.html); IR `/us/605/114`, SHA1 `860fc77cb777643d15f6fb05358309e5dc329d10`, chars=60000. - Read window `6800:36000`: Read facts and majority through common-law analysis: contracts for bridge/station paintwork, sham disadvantaged supplier; property aimed at was government payment, even though work had equal value. - Read window `35500:48000`: Materiality indispensable but precise competing tests left open; Kelly regulatory-interest and incidental-cost limits and Ciminelli right-to-control rejection expressly preserved. Footnote 2 applies common language to mail fraud. ### Neder v. United States (527 U.S. 1, 1999) - Pin: 527 U.S. 1, 20–25 (1999), majority Part III. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_527/0001_01/index.html); IR `/us/527/0001-01`, SHA1 `33412a8a9e886242007cfbf71e172757125b18dc`, chars=60000. - Read window `30300:38300`: Statutory language does not expressly say materiality, but settled common-law fraud supplies it. Reliance and completed damages are not offense elements. Distinguish preceding tax/harmless-error discussion from substantive fraud holding. ### United States v. Hagen (917 F.3d 668, 2019) - Pin: 917 F.3d 668, 672–675 (8th Cir. 2019), seasonal counts. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_917/0668_01/index.html); IR `/f3d/917/0668-01`, SHA1 `aa226b99ba16b5f8c421f3e45f44f7bb11fe8245`, chars=20562. - Read window `7800:17000`: Some cattle-grazing transactions supported breach/nonpayment but not fraudulent intent at receipt of payment. Counts based on late apology letters failed furtherance; asserted lulling theory lacked evidence. Other season/counts affirmed; result is transaction specific. ### U.S. v. Petlechkov (922 F.3d 762, 2019) - Pin: 922 F.3d 762, 765–766 (6th Cir. 2019), §II. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_922/0762_01/index.html); IR `/f3d/922/0762-01`, SHA1 `de9ae1be7c42ce65715d41527e98f613f67a6be0`, chars=20532. - Read window `1070:3095`: FedEx discount obtained by pretending to be an authorized vendor. Court states scheme, mail, intent and material misrepresentation test; materiality challenge does not turn every breach into fraud. ### United States v. Gross (370 F. Supp. 3d 1139, 2019) - Pin: 370 F. Supp. 3d 1139, 1149–1152 (C.D. Cal. 2019), §II.B. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_370/1139_01/index.html); IR `/f-supp-3d/370/1139-01`, SHA1 `a607714aa271413136cc16f61a6ae62b8d380cf5`, chars=28388. - Read window `12500:23000`: Motion to dismiss physician kickback indictment. Doctor-patient fiduciary duty and material undisclosed referral payments; no tangible-harm element under honest-services theory. Collection mailings were within larger ongoing billing/kickback scheme. District-court allegation ruling, not jury fact finding or property-fraud loss authority. ### Bascuñán v. Elsaca (927 F.3d 108, 2019) - Pin: 927 F.3d 108, 121–123 (2d Cir. 2019), domestic-conduct analysis. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_927/0108_01/index.html); IR `/f3d/927/0108-01`, SHA1 `45d1e97232345e215ffc97dffff15b6ae84bcfb2`, chars=52111. - Read window `30500:35000`: Civil RICO cross-border diversion allegations. Mail/wire use is statutory focus; domestic use must be a core component for domestic application. This is not the ordinary furtherance test for all domestic fraud. ### United States v. Buncich (926 F.3d 361, 2019) - Pin: 926 F.3d 361, 366–367 (7th Cir. 2019), §II.A. [Corpus source](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_926/0361_01/index.html); IR `/f3d/926/0361-01`, SHA1 `f5550822a0db124a59cd6908b2ca53f176d1d5e2`, chars=18987. - Read window `8300:10392`: Sheriff towing-bribe prosecution under honest-services theory. Bribery/kickback limitation stated. Three counts reversed for missing charged wire transfers, two supported; proof of corrupt scheme alone does not prove transmission. ## Current primary-source verification Checked official Supreme Court opinions on 2026-11-10: [Kousisis, majority pp. 5–18](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-909_f2q3.pdf), [Ciminelli, majority pp. 5–10](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1170_b97d.pdf), and [Kelly, majority pp. 6–13](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1059_e2p3.pdf). Kousisis permits materially fraudulent inducement without net economic loss; Ciminelli excludes deprivation of economic decision information standing alone; Kelly requires a property objective, not incidental governmental expense. These checks supplement the pinned corpus; web PDF text is not silently substituted for IR quotations. After preliminary OLRC URLs returned 404, the [official section page](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-136/t18/s1341/) was successfully checked, displaying currency through Public Law 119-136 (2026-10-22); its operative offense language matches the local statutory hooks. The IR hash still identifies the local snapshot, not the web page. ## Verification and limits `python3 neov2/tools/lawdsl.py check` passes for this file: exact statutory/case quotes, header pin, and hierarchy. Claims explicitly name defined element IDs. Manual audit separates holding from rejected argument, criminal elements from civil RICO predicates, and mail/wire property fraud from §1346. Court-specific domestic-application and materiality formulations are labeled. Independent QA2 substantive review remains required. The research covers the core offense, not every sentencing variant, derivative-liability rule, or honest-services issue. ## Round 5 re-audit — 2026-11-10 Re-read the whole canonical statute and [current OLRC section](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-136/t18/s1341/). The previous mailing node named several statutory alternatives but anchored only postal deposit. Added exact anchors for postal payload, private/interstate-carrier deposit or caused deposit, receipt, and knowingly caused delivery. The execution-purpose span now includes attempting execution. No express exception to this ordinary property-fraud route was found in the operative section; the enhancement paragraph changes penalties rather than supplying a defense. The separately enumerated counterfeit/spurious-article limb is now expressly excluded from the ordinary-property claim instead of silently suggesting full-section coverage. ### Newly read substantive opinions - **United States v. Hubbard**, 96 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1996), §II.B; [corpus](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_96/1223_01/index.html); IR `/f3d/96/1223-01`, SHA1 `7225285a1ccac4159b19d66d2deb9fd176fc7ba4`, 21373 characters. Read `0:6500` and causation/application around `15000:18500`. Conspiracy conviction over odometer fraud and state title mailings; majority expressly applies Pereira's substantive mail-fraud causation rule. Added `16365:16613`, distinguishing foreseeable/known ordinary-course mailing from specific intent to use the mails. Agreement/overt-act doctrine is not imported. Confirmed the original rule in [Pereira, 347 U.S. 1, 8–9](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-347/pdf/USREPORTS-347-1.pdf); original Pereira IR is unavailable here. - **Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co.**, 553 U.S. 639, 647 (2008); [corpus](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_553/0639_01/index.html); IR `/us/553/0639-01`, SHA1 `1eca5d20cfa9da5061cecf97cdfb10118e0213da`, 40610 characters. Read `8900:10500`; added `9839:10169`, the Court's application of Schmuck's substantive mail nexus, including innocent mailings. Civil RICO injury/reliance rules are not imported into the offense. Reopened Kousisis `17900:20800;40400:42500`, Neder `36700:38300`, Runner `27500:29200`, Petlechkov `1000:3100`, Hagen `13800:15900`, Gross `19500:21400`, Buncich `8500:10300`, and Bascuñán `30500:35000`. The object-of-fraud versus incidental regulatory cost rule is intact after Kousisis; added express labeling as judicial construction and clarified that traditional intangible property is not categorically excluded. Intent is now expressly labeled a construction of scheme language. Petlechkov's ordinary-prudence formulation is identified as Sixth Circuit law; Kousisis did not settle the competing materiality formulations. Gross is an indictment ruling in honest-services litigation, not proof of property loss. Bascuñán remains a qualified Second Circuit domestic-application rule. No wrong case identity/pin was found in these retained passages. [Official Kousisis](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-909_f2q3.pdf), majority pp. 5–19, confirms the property/object and no-net-loss analysis and extension to identical mail-fraud language. Known limits: the separately enumerated counterfeit limb, full §1346 fiduciary/bribery analysis, and enhancement facts remain outside this ordinary property-fraud formula. Furtherance depends on the charged scheme's scope; a receipt of money does not invariably end every scheme, and foreseeable mailing alone cannot establish furtherance. The general materiality standard remains subject to circuit law and the issue reserved in Kousisis. No CASE IDs were renamed or removed.