Opinion ID: 738948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Foo

Text: 19 On appeal, Foo only contests his conviction for mail fraud relating to victim Ray Crawford. Crawford testified that Foo had contacted him by phone in January of 1992 and promised him an air purifier and a very expensive bracelet. Foo also promised Crawford the chance to win big prizes. 20 Crawford believed he had to buy a product to get a promotional gift. He testified that none of the USA salespeople, including Foo, disclosed to him that no purchase was necessary for him to receive the prizes. Crawford also testified that he would not have sent $1,900 to the company if any of the salespeople had told him that he did not have to purchase a product. 21 After sending in the $1,900, Crawford received three air purifiers and a cheap bracelet. 22 Foo does not contest that he made the representations to Crawford about the value of the products Crawford would receive and his chances at winning the prizes. Foo contends that he did not make false or misleading statements to Crawford. However, [d]eceitful statements of half-truths or the concealment of material facts is actual fraud under the [mail fraud] statute. United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.1979). 23 Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could have found that Foo committed the essential elements of the crime of mail fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Foo made material misrepresentations and omissions as to the value of the bracelet. He also concealed the material fact that no purchase was necessary to win a big prize. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to convict Foo for mail fraud.