Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the federal statute criminalizing mail fraud applied only to the schemes and artifices defrauding victims of money or property, as opposed to those defrauding citizens of their rights to good government.
Nonetheless, Joe Hogsett, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, called it the longest sentence ever imposed for a white-collar offense in Indiana history. [ 9 ] On September 4, 2014, a federal appeals court overturned two of 10 wire fraud counts against Durham and ordered a new sentencing hearing, saying prosecutors failed to ...
Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the definition of "property" under the federal mail fraud statute. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that "property" for the purposes of federal law did not include state video poker licences because such transactions were not a vested right or expectation.
Mail and wire fraud. Mail fraud and wire fraud are terms used in the United States to describe the use of a physical (e.g., the U.S. Postal Service) or electronic (e.g., a phone, a telegram, a fax, or the Internet) mail system to defraud another, and are U.S. federal crimes. Jurisdiction is claimed by the federal government if the illegal ...
Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal law and procedure.By a 5–4 margin it upheld the mail fraud conviction of an Illinois man and resolved a conflict among the appellate circuits over which test to use to determine if a defendant was entitled to a jury instruction allowing conviction on a lesser included charge.
These individuals face up to 20 years and a fine of up to $250,000 for wire and mail fraud convictions and up to 10 years and a fine of up to $5 million for counts of trafficking in counterfeit ...
Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (1954), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the word "knowingly" in the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, [1] should extend to all reasonably foreseeable consequences, even ones not specifically intended. [2] [3]
Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (the federal mail and wire fraud statute), added by the United States Congress in 1988, [1] which states "For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." [2]