Opinion ID: 513267
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Challenges--Mail Fraud

Text: 68 The defendants' remaining challenges to their mail fraud convictions warrant little discussion. They contend that there was an insufficient causal connection between the use of the mails and their participation in the bidding scheme. They point out that the two mailings which are the basis for the mail fraud counts occurred in 1984 and 1985, after Dynalectric received its final payment pursuant to the joint venture agreement in 1983 and well after the rigged bids were submitted in 1979. However, as we concluded in our discussion of the statute of limitations issue, the payments from Hyman to Paxson Electric were important aspects of the conspiracy. Thus, the payments which were mailed in 1984 and 1985 clearly were integral to the scheme to defraud. See United States v. Young Bros., Inc., 728 F.2d at 689 (court sustained mail fraud conviction in bid rigging context where defendant claimed that the mailings were not sufficiently closely related to the scheme to defraud; the court reasoned that mailing a payoff to a coconspirator after the rigged bids were submitted was sufficient because it reasonably can be inferred that [the defendant] would not have agreed to the scheme on behalf of his company without being paid.); United States v. Rodgers, 624 F.2d at 1310 (mail fraud conviction upheld where victim mailed to defendants the final payment of a contract obtained by rigged bids; the court concluded that [t]he scheme would have been meaningless, incomplete, and futile without final award and payment which were accomplished through the mail. Clearly, the mails were used 'in furtherance' of the scheme.). 69 Dynalectric's claim that there was insufficient evidence that it caused the mails to be used is without merit. Paxson Electric, through its affiliate CCC Electric, caused the mails to be used by requisitioning the two payments from Hyman. Evidence was presented at trial that in the ordinary course of business, the general contractor (Hyman) mails the subcontractor its contract payments following the receipt and approval of the subcontractor's payment requisition. Thus, we conclude that Paxson Electric reasonably could have anticipated that the mails would be used in the ordinary course of business to facilitate the transfer of contract payments to it (via CCC Electric) from Hyman pursuant to CCC Electric's requisition for payment. United States v. Rodgers, 624 F.2d at 1310 n. 17. Moreover, because Dynalectric was a knowing participant in the scheme to defraud, the actions of coconspirator Paxson Electric which caused the mails to be used in furtherance of the scheme are sufficient to make Dynalectric legally liable for the use of the mails. United States v. Hewes, 729 F.2d at 1322 n. 24. As we explained in Hewes, [t]he mere fact that [defendant's] role in the scheme may have ended prior to the time the [mailings] occurred does not shield him from criminal liability. Id. at 1324.