Document: 371 U.S. 75 83 S.Ct. 173 9 L.Ed.2d 136 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Ralph L. SAMPSON et al. No. 69. Argued Oct. 18, 1962. Decided Nov. 19, Howard P. Willens, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Randolph W. Thrower, Atlanta, Ga., appellees. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The appellees were indicted in a United States District Court on charges that they had used mails 'for purpose executing' fraudulent scheme violation 18 U.S.C. § 1341, U.S.C.A. 1341,1 and conspired to so use mails.2 It is clear allegations, if proved, would show existed mailings charged fact occurred. dismissed 34 counts, however, ground facts alleged showed not scheme, as required by statute. court also conspiracy count without giving additional reasons. case properly here direct appeal Government under 3731, 3731. only question we must decide with reference substantive counts whether allegations indictment sufficient permit jury find scheme. Whether sufficiently depends upon its allegations. In brief summary, these are: 2 individual defendants officers, directors, employees large, nationwide corporation, defendant, regional offices various States. purported be able help businessmen obtain loans or sell out their businesses. Although lavish promises freely given, did intend make any substantial efforts perform promised services. As part this secured salesmen who trained deceive those whom dealt innuendos, half-truths, false statements.3 These defendants, according mere small-time sporadic swindlers but rather have deliberately planned devised well-integrated, long-range, effective propaganda, salesmen, other techniques soften up then cheat victims one one. Under plan, personal calls made prospects urged representations sign applications asking them further prospects, many times successfully, give check an 'advance fee,' all being assured accepted at office fee' refunded. Payments fees promptly converted into cashiers' checks local banks forwarded corporate where applications, signed accompanied right amount. immediately deposited defendants' bank account. money already been obtained, plan still called mailing application together form letter lulling said representing therefore valuable services which falsely fraudulently represented perform.'4 was compile rudimentary financial data forward it lending agencies inform attempt convince defrauded performing meaningful behalves. Moreover, while refusing refund fee, pretended investigate complaints from encouraged deny having representations, time seeking statements believe faithfully performed continue short, originally actually carried out, included activities both before after given over defendants. Of course, none established evidence, stage proceedings tested sufficiency charge offense. 3 relied acceptances victims' conceded Government, prior each acceptance victim obtained expected get victim. district judge's reason holding federal offense that, since mailed, could For chiefly Kann v. States, 323 88, 65 148, 89 L.Ed. 88 (1944), Parr 363 370, 80 1171, 4 1277 (1960). Kann, employer matters confined region. payable cashed bank. statute collection drawn. Prior mailing, found, sought, far concerned reached fruition come complete rest. viewed it, contemplated no more. done outsiders, banks, connection whatsoever fraud. mailed banks' own purposes way furthering Court's view immaterial consummation how sought collect them. 5 Parr, second relied, gasoline products themselves credit card School authorized District's only. complained two invoices sent oil company back payment. Again outsiders integral executed matter fact, completely what about collecting bill. 6 We are unable anything either suggests laying down automatic rule deliberate, can never Rather found cases schemes fully used. And Appeals decisions rendered followed subsequent some circumstances provide basis mail fraud statutes.5 7 pointed above, start commission victims. specifically copies covering letters assurances performed. cannot hold such deliberate engaged nationwide, pursuance previously formulated not, proper instructions within meaning reasons, error dismiss counts. 8 At trial stating Court, contended duplicates 43 because reality count. On basis, argued there unjustified pyramiding particular fair trial. anticipate arguments more appropriately addressed should conduct result rights. Since face, like faces, separate against Reversed. 10 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 11 I think today materially qualifies 1277. There, face jury's verdict, held third party's funds, pay property 'obtained,' property. makes clear,1 foundation prosecution using described Act. So relevant here, defraud representations. 12 possible indictments drawn lull existing feeling security successfully consummated. does construe concludes, read sense enough.2 If enough, seem sustained conviction may well wanted party apprehended. case, 'a continuing course conduct' (to borrow phrase dissent, U.S., 402, 1189) conceal future peculations might possible. same taxpayers Here suggestion time.3 tranquilize defrauded. Or least indictment. much weaker than Parr. 13 struggle uphold poorly To do encourages fields essentially local. '§ 1341. Frauds swindles. 'Whoever, intending devise artifice defraud, obtaining means pretenses, promises, * executing attempting do, places post depository matter, thing whatever Post Office Department, knowingly causes direction thereon, thing, shall fined $1,000 imprisoned five years, both.' 371, 371. 'It secure agreeable unethical sales talks hire field representatives, teach prospective disadvantage jump act puppets salesman handled client right, try impress expert; confuse lead believing LSC care sold contract perfectly innuendos half-truths *.' Record, pp. 4—5. p. 8. fees, cancellable, recourse retrieving his money. Ibid. See, e.g., Lowe, 115 F.2d 596 (C.A.7th Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 311 717, 61 441, 85 466 (1941); Riedel, 126 81 1942); Clark 93 U.S.App.D.C. 61, 208 840, 346 865, 74 105, 98 376 (1953). (a) Department (guilty crime) (Italics added.) indictment, phase 'lulling security. Solicitor General states brief: 'The government advance intention earning balance due service contracts. No payments got victim.'

Category: 0