Opinion ID: 197023
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence (Counts I, III & IV )

Text: 46 After the government rested its case, Josleyn moved for acquittal under Counts I, III, and IV, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Honda dealers and their dealer advertising associations had been victimized by the alleged mail fraud since the dealers and advertising associations had received the sales training and advertising services for which they paid. This claim fails as well. 47 In United States v. Allard, 926 F.2d 1237 (1st Cir.1991), we explained that it is no defense that the victim received something in exchange even if it was equivalent in value to what the victim was deceived into relinquishing. Id. at 1242 (citing United States v. King, 860 F.2d 54, 55 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1065, 109 S.Ct. 2062, 104 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989)). Given that the proper inquiry under Allard is whether Josleyn intended to defraud the dealers and advertising associations into parting with their money, there was ample evidence, particularly the testimony of Cardiges, to support the jury verdicts against Josleyn under Counts I, III, and IV.