Opinion ID: 758092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: There is sufficient evidence to support Serang's mail fraud convictions

Text: 21 The appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he caused the use of the mails because it was immaterial to him how the insurance proceeds were obtained. 22 The elements of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 are: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, and (2) using or causing the use of the mails to further the scheme. See United States v. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (9th Cir.1996). The second element requires both that the appellant caused the mails to be used and that the mailing was sufficiently closely related to the scheme. Id. at 1228. 23 Appellant clearly caused the mails to be used. Although the government must prove specific intent to defraud, see United States v. Peters, 962 F.2d 1410, 1414 (9th Cir.1992), it need not prove that the appellant specifically intended to use the mails. See Hubbard, 96 F.3d at 1229. Rather, if the government shows that a defendant knows or can reasonably foresee that use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, then he causes the mails to be used. Id. (citing Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954)). In this case, the appellant's scheme to defraud the insurance company depended on the insurance company's investigation and processing of the fraudulent claim. As a result, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the appellant could have foreseen that the company would use the mails for those purposes. 24 In addition, the mailing was sufficiently closely related to the scheme. A mailing is sufficiently closely related to the fraudulent scheme if it is for the purpose of executing the scheme or incident to an essential part of the scheme. Hubbard, 96 F.3d at 1228 (internal quotations and citation omitted). In other words, the mailing must be a step in the plot. Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 711, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, a jury reasonably could have concluded that the use of the mails in processing the insurance claim was incident to an essential part of the scheme--filing the claim and obtaining the insurance proceeds. Thus, there was sufficient evidence that the appellant caused the use of the mails to further the payment of the fraudulent claim.