Opinion ID: 2774634
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of Mails and Material Falsehoods

Text: We briefly address the second and third elements, which are not directly challenged by Plato, before discussing the first element, upon which Plato’s argument centers. Regarding the second element, “[e]ach separate use of the mails to further a scheme to defraud is a separate offense.” 11 The Government need not show that the defendant used or intended the use of the mails, but merely that the scheme depended on information or documents passing through the mails. 12 The Government provided ample evidence, both documentary and testimonial, that the mails were used to market, exchange, and make payments on the promissory notes. Regarding the third element, a statement or omission is material if it “has a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmak[er] to which it was addressed.” 13 Plato’s brief acknowledges the testimony by investors that they would not have purchased the Notes had they known there were errors or misrepresentations. Among the misrepresentations alleged at trial and discussed further below, the Government also included Plato’s failure to disclose to investors his criminal history, restitution orders, and disbarment, as well as MPC’s financial straits. 9United States v. Phipps, 595 F.3d 243, 245-46 (5th Cir. 2010). 10 United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 370 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 Id. (quoting United States v. Pazos, 24 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 1994)). 12 See id. 13 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 Case: 13-20222 Document: 00512919459 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/29/2015 No. 13-20222 Plato challenges the relevance of the omissions in duty-to-disclose terms, arguing that he did not have a duty under the mail fraud statute to disclose this information to prospective noteholders. However, an omission’s materiality determines whether its nondisclosure can serve as a basis for fraud and Plato’s argument lacks merit in light of the aforementioned investor testimony.