Opinion ID: 513267
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: money; and

Text: 45 (b) their right to free and open competition for the bidding on the electrical construction portion of the Snapfinger Creek project, such bidding to be conducted honestly, fairly and free from craft, trickery, deceit, corruption, dishonesty and fraud. 46 24. It was part of the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud that the defendants, and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, would and did submit collusive, artificially high and rigged bids in order to induce the general contractor selected to build the Snapfinger Creek project to award the subcontract for the electrical construction portion of the project to defendant Paxson Electric. 17 47 The plain language of the indictment charges the defendants with scheming to defraud the EPA and Dekalb County of money. While it also charges that the defendants schemed to defraud the victims of their right to open competition, the indictment is not worded in a way that would allow the jury to choose between the two theories. Rather, to convict the defendants in accordance with the indictment, the jury must have concluded that there was a scheme to defraud the victims of money and the right to open competition. See United States v. Perholtz, 836 F.2d 554, 559 (D.C.Cir.1988) (holding indictment was sufficient under McNally where it alleged defendants created a kickback scheme to defraud the victim of its  'lawful right to conduct business and affairs free from kickbacks ...'  and also--not alternatively--one 'to obtain money and property....'  (quoting indictment) (emphasis in original)); United States v. Eckhardt, 843 F.2d 989, 996-97 (7th Cir.1988) (mail fraud conviction entered pursuant to plea agreement upheld where the indictment alleged a scheme to defraud the victim of intangible rights and to obtain money and property by false and fraudulent pretenses.). 48 In McNally, the indictment charged that defendants schemed to defraud the government and citizens of Kentucky of their right to have the Commonwealth's affairs conducted honestly.... --- U.S. at ---- n. 4, 107 S.Ct. at 2878 n. 4. The indictment also charged that the defendants schemed to obtain (directly and indirectly) money ... but did not allege that they schemed to defraud the victims of money. Thus, the McNally indictment was substantially different from the one in this case. 49