Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The relative ease of proving mail fraud violations and the apparent increase in corrupt political activities have caused more political officials to face mail fraud prosecutions. The recent successful prosecution of a non-elected political official foreshadows the continuing evolution of the mail fraud act as one of the public's protectors ...
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."
In light of increased mail theft and identity fraud, the U.S. Postal Service has taken several steps. impact. One is called Informed Delivery , a digital service you can sign up for to know what ...
The most common type of check fraud is what’s known as check washing, where a criminal steals the check from the mail and proceeds to change the payee’s name on the check and, additionally ...
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.
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.
Findley is charged with mail fraud and aggravated identity theft and could face up to 40 years in prison plus fines in connection with the case. Findley was indicted by a grand jury on Sept. 10.