MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
II. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
A. Scheme to Defraud by Means of a Material Deception . . . . . . 877
B. Intent to Defraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
C. Use of the Mails, Wires, or Both in Furtherance of a Scheme to
Defraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
D. Loss of Money, Property, or Deprivation of Honest Services . . 883
1. Loss of Money or Tangible Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
2. Loss of Intangible Property .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
3. Deprivation of Honest Services .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
III. DEFENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
A. Good Faith .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
B. Statute of Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
IV. SENTENCING .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
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.
4
While some have lauded the statutes,
5
others
have expressed concern about their sweep, maintaining that the “mail and wire
fraud statutes have ‘been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly
broad swath of behavior,’ creating uncertainty in business negotiations and chal-
lenges to due process and federalism.”
6
In practice, the statutes have often been -
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 Ralph K. Winter, Paying Lawyers, Empowering Prosecutors and Protecting Managers: Raising the
Cost of Capital in America, 42 DUKE L.J. 945, 954 (1993) (noting the “wide range of conduct involve[es]
conflicts of interest, alleged misrepresentations, or the failure of agents to inform alleged principals of certain
facts”).
5. E.g., Rakoff, supra note 1, at 771.
6. United States v. Weimert, 819 F.3d 351, 356 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Sorich v. United States, 555 U.S.
1204, 1205 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari)).
875
used as a stopgap to enable prosecution of new forms of fraud until Congress
enacts more particularized legislation.
7
Although Congress originally enacted the mail fraud statute to secure the integ-
rity of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”),
8
the mail and wire fraud statutes
are now applied to several modes of communication
9
and provide federal courts
with jurisdiction over a broad array of frauds.
10
See Sawyer, 85 F.3d at 723 n.5 (referring to mailing element as “hook” to secure federal jurisdiction);
United States v. Gatto, 968 F.3d 104, 109–10 (2d Cir. 2021) (affirming wire fraud convictions for Adidas
executives who defrauded universities by paying college basketball players to attend the universities in violation
of NCAA rules); Lauren del Valle & Kara Scannell, Michael Avenatti convicted of wire fraud and aggravated
identity theft for stealing from Stormy Daniels, CNN (Feb. 4, 2022, 3:37 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/
politics/michael-avenatti/index.html (reporting on attorney who stole proceeds of book deal).
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.
11
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.
12
Parts A through D of this Section provide an overview of
these elements, respectively.
Additionally, the wire fraud statute requires proof of an interstate nexus because
Congress relied solely on its Commerce Clause power to enact the statute.
13
7. See United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 405–06 (1974) (Burger, C.J., dissenting), superseded by statute,
18 U.S.C. § 1344; United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 723 n.5 (1st Cir. 1996).
8. See, e.g., Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 389 (1960).
9. See infra Section II.C. (discussing application of the wire fraud statute to new modes of communication).
10.
11. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(c)(7)(A), 1957(f)(3), 1961(1); see also United States v. Simon, 12 F.4th 1, 33–34 (1st
Cir. 2021) (affirming RICO conviction based on mail fraud), cert. denied sub nom. Lee v. United States, 142 S.
Ct. 2812 (2022); United States v. Fattah, 914 F.3d 112, 166 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming RICO conviction based on
wire fraud). 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.
12. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346; Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565, 1571 (2020).
13. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (stating any scheme must be “transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television
communication in interstate or foreign commerce”); United States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d 954, 968 (9th Cir. 2013)
(noting that wires are instrumentalities of interstate commerce).
876 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 61:875
