Opinion ID: 2976177
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Offenses of Conviction

Text: The essential elements of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the mailing of material for the purpose of executing the scheme. United States v. Stull, 743 F.2d 439, 441-42 (6th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). “In order to 15 sustain a conviction, the government must also prove a defendant’s intent to defraud.” Id. (citation omitted). “Direct evidence of fraudulent intent is not necessary; where sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented, the jury may properly infer that the defendant was culpably involved from his conduct, statements, and role in the overall operation.” Id. (citations omitted). A scheme to defraud includes “any plan or course of action by which someone uses false, deceptive, or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises to deprive someone else of money.” United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 402 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). To justify a conspiracy to commit mail fraud conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the evidence must show that the defendant “‘knowingly and willfully joined in an agreement with at least one other person to commit an act of mail fraud and that there was at least one overt act in furtherance of the agreement.’” Id. (citation omitted). Further, to establish a conspiracy, “the government need not show an explicit agreement, but merely that the defendant knew the object of the conspiracy and voluntarily associated himself with it to further its objectives.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). The elements of the charged money laundering offenses are: 16 (1) use of funds that are proceeds of unlawful activity; (2) knowledge that the funds are proceeds of unlawful activity; and (3) conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction, knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part to disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the proceeds. United States v. Prince, 214 F.3d 740, 747 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). All four appealing defendants argue that there was insufficient evidence to sustain their convictions. Each defendant will be discussed in turn.