Talk:Mail and wire fraud

message: What's the intent behind making this an extra crime beyond the underlying fraud itself? -- 84.57.69.121 09:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes the fraudulent activity a federal crime rather than a state crime. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why crime beyond underlying fraud? 

message: The article says
Congress promptly amended the copyright law to limit further use of this loophole.
It's unclear what this mean. Did Congress act to prevent prosecutors from charging wire fraud when no underlying fraud could be proven? Or did it act to prevent defendants from claiming that they could not be charged under wire fraud when no underlying fraud could be proven? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The No Electronic Theft Act (NET) made reproduction of copyrighted material a criminal offense without regard to whether the accused received a financial benefit if the retail value of the reproduced copyrighted materials exceeds $1000.00. 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2)(1997). The article seems to focus exclusively on wire fraud as it relates to copyright infringement. Aren't readers looking for a more general discussion? Eudemis (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm searching for a reference that this law is sometimes used as an elastic clause where no other law seems to fit. See the critical art enseble case. Maybe that was meant by the use of the word loophole in the article? --Panoramedia (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "limit further use of this loophole"? 

message: The Link to the German language article points to "Überweisungsbetrug", which has very little to do with wire fraud (it is in fact a specific term for defrauding money using forged transfer orders). To the best of my knowledge there is no "wire fraud" statute in Germany or other German speaking countries. I think, this link should be removed.
Mikadokratie (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Wire fraud != Bank transfer fraud
This article is about committing fraud using electronic communication. This is not the same as committing fraud by bank transfer. For this reason, I am removing the interwikilink to de:Überweisungsbetrug. -- Dynam1te3 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  German language link 

message: The clump of words that begins, "According to Neder v. United States..." is not a sentence. At least not a sentence that can be clearly understood. Could it be that the comma near the end needs to be moved? My knowledge of the law and legal punctuation is lacking. Can someone help here? Rainbow-five (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is This a Sentence? 

message: http://www.causes.com/causes/14561-save-the-baltic-sea
ostensibly asking money for the Baltic sea, yet actually gathering cash for the US WWF to do work on tigers, whales (of which there are none in the Baltic Sea) etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  an example of wire fraud? 

message: The main entry for mail fraud redirects here, even though this article is blatantly about just one country and not mail fraud in general. The main entry should be a list of scams, much like list of confidence tricks, Internet fraud and telemarketing fraud. K7L (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-centric rubbish