Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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] The idea of this law was to criminalize not only schemes to defraud victims of money and property, but also schemes to defraud victims of intangible rights such as the "honest services" of a public official.
Mail fraud was first defined in the United States in 1872. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 provides: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use ...
One intangible form of property recognized under the mail and wire fraud statutes is the right to control the disposition of government funds. [63] In 1983, Curato et al. noted that: [F]ederal courts and prosecutors are now realizing the potential uses for the mail fraud statute in combating political corruption.
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.
He persuaded victims to illegally come to the United States or overstay their visas. In a 2017 federal court trial, a jury convicted him of multiple counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, and encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain. The district court sentenced Hansen to 20 years in prison. [1] [2] [3]
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.
The government had done so in this case, but Banks argued that the "special circumstances" provisions of the mail fraud statute controlled, barring it from having that request granted where the fraudulent scheme had not victimized a financial institution. [9] Since it was a question of law, the court exercised plenary review. Van Antwerpen ...
Email fraud (or email scam) is intentional deception for either personal gain or to damage another individual using email as the vehicle. Almost as soon as email became widely used, it began to be used as a means to defraud people, just as telephony and paper mail were used by previous generations.