Opinion ID: 2718751
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counts One through Five: Wire Fraud

Text: Counts One through Five of the indictment charged Forehand with committing wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Mail and wire fraud are analytically identical save for the method of execution. Both offenses require that a person (1) intentionally participates in a scheme or artifice to defraud another of money or property, and (2) uses or causes the use of the mails or wires for the purpose of executing the scheme or artifice. The first element, a scheme or artifice to defraud, requires proof of a material 6 Case: 13-14089 Date Filed: 08/19/2014 Page: 7 of 13 misrepresentation, or the omission or concealment of a material fact calculated to deceive another out of money or property. A misrepresentation is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision maker to whom it is addressed. United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1238–39 (11th Cir. 2011) (footnotes, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). “Proof of intent to defraud is necessary to support convictions for mail and wire fraud.” Id. at 1239. “An intent may be found when the defendant believed that he could deceive the person to whom he made the material misrepresentation out of money or property of some value.” Maxwell, 579 F.3d at 1301 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A jury may infer an intent to defraud from the defendant’s conduct.” Bradley, 644 F.3d at 1239 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Evidence that a defendant personally profited from a fraud may provide circumstantial evidence of an intent to participate in that fraud.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Forehand had the requisite intent required for wire fraud. At trial, the circumstantial evidence presented by the government demonstrated that Forehand personally and repeatedly misrepresented or omitted material facts in an attempt to influence investors to invest in his scheme. For example, the victim-investors testified at trial that had they known that Forehand’s business partner was a convicted fraudster, they would not have invested with Forehand. Likewise, the victim-investors testified that had 7 Case: 13-14089 Date Filed: 08/19/2014 Page: 8 of 13 they known that Forehand’s business partner had bounced hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks to him and other investors, they would not have invested with him. These material misrepresentations to the victim-investors demonstrate Forehand’s intent to defraud those investors. See id. (“A jury may infer an intent to defraud from the defendant’s conduct.”). Furthermore, Forehand profited significantly from the fraud scheme. This is further circumstantial evidence of his intent to participate in the fraud. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the wire fraud convictions.