MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
II. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
A. Scheme to Defraud by Means of a Material Deception . . . . . . 863
B. Intent to Defraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
C. Use of the Mails, Wires, or Both in Furtherance of a Scheme to
Defraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
D. Loss of Money, Property, or Deprivation of Honest Services . . 867
1. Loss of Money or Tangible Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
2. Loss of Intangible Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
3. Deprivation of Honest Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
III. DEFENSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
A. Good Faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
B. Statute of Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
IV. SENTENCING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
I. INTRODUCTION
To federal prosecutors of white collar crime, the mail fraud statute is our
Stradivarius, our Colt 45, our Louisville Slugger, our Cuisinart—and our true
love. We may flirt with RICO, show off with 10b-5, and call the conspiracy
law “darling,” but we always come home to the virtues of 18 U.S.C. § 1341,
with its simplicity, adaptability, and comfortable familiarity.
1
The federal mail
2
and wire
3
fraud statutes are powerful tools for prosecutors that
apply to a wide range of conduct. Although Congress originally enacted the mail
fraud statute to secure the integrity of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”),
4
the mail and wire fraud statutes are now applied to several modes of communication
5
and provide federal courts with jurisdiction over a broad array of frauds.
6
While some
have lauded the statutes,
7
others have expressed concern about their sweep, maintain -
ing that the “mail and wire fraud statutes have ‘been invoked to impose criminal pen-
alties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behavior,’ creating uncertainty in business
negotiations and challenges to due process and federalism.”
8
1. Jed Rakoff, The Federal Mail Fraud Statute (Part I), 18 DUQ. L. REV. 771, 771 (1980).
2. 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
3. Id. § 1343.
4. See, e.g., Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 389 (1960).
5. See infra Section II.C. (discussing application of the wire fraud statute to new modes of communication).
6. See United States v. Weimert, 819 F.3d 351, 356 (7th Cir. 2016).
7. E.g., Rakoff, supra note 1, at 771.
8. Weimert, 819 F.3d at 356 (quoting Sorich v. United States, 555 U.S. 1204, 1205 (2009) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting from denial of certiorari)).
861
Because of their flexibility, the statutes have sometimes been used as a stopgap
to enable prosecution of new forms of fraud until Congress enacts more particular-
ized legislation.
9
Further, mail and wire fraud are predicate felonies under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and are specified
as unlawful activity for purposes of the federal money laundering statutes.
10
This Article provides an overview of the prosecution of offenses under the fed-
eral mail and wire fraud statutes. Section II of this Article lists and analyzes the
elements of a mail or wire fraud offense. Section III examines the available
defenses. Finally, Section IV addresses sentencing issues that relate to convictions
under the mail and wire fraud statutes.
II. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
For a mail or wire fraud offense, the government must prove beyond a reasona-
ble doubt that the defendant perpetrated (A) a scheme to defraud by means of a ma-
terial deception; (B) with the specific intent to defraud; (C) while using the mails,
private commercial carriers, and/or wires in furtherance of that scheme; (D) that
did result or would have resulted in the loss of money or property or the depriva-
tion of honest services.
11
Parts A through D of this Section provide an overview of
these elements, respectively.
Additionally, the wire fraud statute requires proof that the scheme be “transmit-
ted . . . in interstate or foreign commerce.”
12
Internet communications and wires
satisfy this requirement, even in the absence of proof that a fraudulent communica-
tion traveled through out-of-state servers.
13
Conversely, the mail fraud statute does not require an interstate nexus because
Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the USPS.
14
Further, the mail fraud statute
extends to “private or commercial interstate carrier[s]”
15
even if the conduct
charged took place entirely intrastate
16
because Congress may regulate facilities or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
17
Each use of the mail or wires constitutes a separate offense and can be charged
as a separate count in an indictment.
18
In addition, mail and wire fraud charges can
9. See United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 405–06 (1974) (Burger, C.J., dissenting).
10. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(c)(7)(A), 1957(f)(3), 1961(1). For a discussion of liability under the RICO or money
laundering statutes, see the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations and Money Laundering Articles in
this Issue.
11. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346; Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. 391, 398 (2020).
12. 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
13. See United States v. Kieffer, 681 F.3d 1143, 1154–55 (10th Cir. 2012) (internet communications); United
States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d 954, 968 (9th Cir. 2013) (wires).
14. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 7.
15. 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
16. United States v. Henry, 314 F. App’x 250, 252 (11th Cir. 2009).
17. See id.; U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
18. See United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 367 (4th Cir. 2012).
862 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62:861
