Source: http://californiafederalcriminaldefense.com/MailFraudCrimes.html
Timestamp: 2017-08-20 02:18:27
Document Index: 404817457

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1341', '§ 1346', '§ 1341', '§ 1341', '§ 1341', '§ 1341', '§ 1342', '§ 1342', '§ 1342', '§ 1346', '§ 1346']

California Federal Mail Fraud Defense Attorneys & Lawyers - Located in San Francisco, California
Mail Fraud, which is committed through the U.S. Postal Service, may involve sending false written statements by mail for financial benefit. Black's Law Dictionary 687 (8th ed. 2005). As with wire fraud statutes, the U.S. Supreme Court recommends that the mail fraud statues, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342, be conservatively interpreted to ensure that they are not applied in ways unintended by the U.S. Congress. See Pasquantino v. United States, __ U.S. __, __, 125 S. Ct. 1766, 1784 (2005) (Ginsburg, J. dissenting). Additionally, in the case of United States v. Murphy, 323 F.3d 102, 116 (3d Cir. 2003), the Supreme Court found that 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (2005), which criminalizes the act of "depriv[ing] another of the intangible right of honest services," displaces the decision of McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 360 (1987).
Defendants accused of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342 are sometimes charged with additional criminal violations that fall under other statutes. Some examples include the following: The defendant in United States v. George, 477 F.2d 508 (7th Cir. 1973) was accused of committing mail fraud and receiving kickbacks for disloyalty and deceitfulness toward a manufacturer; the accused in the case of United States v. Martin, 195 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 1999) was prosecuted for violating the mail fraud statues as well as bribing a public official; in United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000) and United States v. Haber, 251 F.3d 881 (10th Cir. 2001), the defendant in both cases was prosecuted for both mail fraud and wire fraud; and lastly, the accused in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) was charged with bank, mail, and wire fraud. The following descriptions outline the United States Code mail fraud statutes and pertinent cases pertaining to them.
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2005).
Section 1341 is a rather dense and convoluted statute. Under this section, it is a crime
any such matter or thing, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2005).
a fine of not more than $ 1,000,000, imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2005).
United States v. Frank, 354 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2004).
One of the defendants in this case were convicted on twenty-two counts of mail fraud. The court gives a slightly different, but still acceptable, statement of the required elements for conviction under section 1341. "These convictions require proof that [the defendant] voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud the United States by concealing his assets, that he entered into the scheme with the intent to defraud, that he knew it was reasonably foreseeable that the mails would be used, and that he used the mails in furtherance of the scheme." Frank at 916. Seventeen of the defendant's mail fraud counts charged him with executing a scheme to defraud the United States, inhibiting its ability to collect on a financial judgment against the defendant, by mailing the probation office financial reports which did not accurately reflect his assets or income. Id. at 917. The defendant reported "virtually no assets" but the government had evidence that he actually had significant assets and income. Id. Because he used the mails to execute this scheme, the evidence "was sufficient to sustain [the defendant's] conviction" on those counts. Id. Three additional counts of mail fraud charged the defendant with mail fraud cased upon letters he sent to the United States Attorney's Office in which he asserted that a man, who allegedly owed the defendant a debt, did not have the money to pay the defendant. Id. However, the government introduced evidence that the defendant actually purchased vehicles with the money he allegedly lent the other man. Id. Again, by using the mails to defraud the United States-in this instance, the government, based on the letters sent by the defendant, "pursued the wrong avenue of collection and was impeded in its ability to garnish his income"-the court determined that the evidence showed mail fraud. Id. The final two mail fraud counts relate to the use of the mail to transfer titles for two vehicles which the defendant acquired under fraudulent pretenses. The court found that the elements of wire fraud had been met in these instances as well. Id. at 917-18.
18 U.S.C. § 1342 (2005).
Section 1342 is a much simpler statute, and is only somewhat related to the general notion of "mail fraud," but as concerns about identity theft mount, it is important to be aware of section 1342.
conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device proscribed by section 1341, or any other unlawful business
any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious name or address or to any name or address not his own. 18 U.S.C. § 1342 (2005).
The punishment for a violation of section 1342 is
a fine, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 1342 (2005).
Case Law Interpreting Section 1342
Because section 1342 incorporates by reference section 1341, a conviction for section 1342 requires proof of a violation of section 1341. United States v. Scott, 326 F. Supp. 272, 275 (W.D. Pa. 1972).
The enactment of section 1346 has greatly complicated statutory analysis of the mail fraud statute. "While the legislative history of § 1346 seems to indicate an intention to resurrect the pre-McNally case law relating to the deprivation of intangible rights by use of the mails," some case law has determined that "pre-McNally cases construing the prior statute are not binding, and that the new offense was defined by statute, … not by pre[-]McNally judicial decisions." United States v. Adler, 274 F. Supp. 2d 583, 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). In short, the effect of section 1346 remains to be seen, but there is general acceptance of the notion that "convictions under § 1346 that involved schemes … in which the defendant breached or induced the breach of a duty owed by an employee or agent to his employer or principal that was enforceable by an action at tort" must be upheld. Rybicki at 264.