Opinion ID: 197331
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirements of a Scheme to Defraud

Text: 17 Continuing with the mail fraud case, Jordan next argues that the government failed to allege and prove that Pioneer suffered actual harm or that he was unjustly enriched as a result of the fraud as required under the 18 U.S.C. § 1341. 3 The government contends that defendant affirmatively waived this ground by requesting a jury instruction on the mail fraud count that did not include any mention of actual harm or unjust enrichment. 4 We agree. See United States v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800, 808 (1st Cir.1996) (citing United States v. Marder, 48 F.3d 564, 571 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1056, 115 S.Ct. 1441, 131 L.Ed.2d 320 (1995)). For the mail fraud case we add only the following. 18 Prior to the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 in 1988, the Supreme Court had held in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 360, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 2881-82, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987), that schemes to defraud under the mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass the intangible right to honest government but were limited to schemes to defraud a victim of money or property. Congress responded by enacting section 1346, expanding the definition of fraud to include a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. 19 In light of the advent of § 1346, in order to prove mail fraud under § 1341 the government must show that the defendant used the mails for the purpose of executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud, United States v. Allard, 926 F.2d 1237, 1242 (1st Cir.1991), and such scheme may include one to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services, United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 732 (1st Cir.1996). What is required is that an articulable harm befall [the victim] as a result of the defendant's activities, or some gainful use must be intended by the [defendant], whether or not this use is profitable in the economic sense. United States v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1074-75 (1st Cir.1997). Actual monetary harm or unjust enrichment is therefore not required. A defendant need not even successfully carry out the scheme to defraud in order to be found guilty. Id.; Allard, 926 F.2d at 1242. 20 Even if we had not found Jordan's argument waived, we agree that the government presented sufficient evidence that the jury could have found that Jordan deprived Pioneer of his services and/or its money through a scheme to defraud.