Opinion ID: 3053996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Mail Fraud Count

Text: [6] We have held that “[a] misrepresentation must be material to form the basis of a conviction for mail or securities fraud.” United States v. Tarallo, 380 F.3d 1174, 1182 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “For mail fraud, the test is whether the statement has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the addressee’s decision.” Id. (citation omitted). Blixt submits that “the government failed to present proof as to the ‘materiality’ element, i.e., that the mailings influenced anybody at Crawford to part with money.” She contends that her mailing of the checks to the Atlanta office “did not influence anybody to part with money because the thefts had already occurred.” Blixt’s argument disregards the established definition of materiality. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the gov15820 UNITED STATES v. BLIXT ernment need not prove reliance to establish materiality, stating: In one sense, the Government is correct that the fraud statutes did not incorporate all the elements of common-law fraud. The common-law requirements of “justifiable reliance” and “damages,” for example, plainly have no place in the federal fraud statutes. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 872 F.2d 957, 960 (C.A.10 1989) (“Under the mail fraud statute, the government does not have to prove actual reliance upon the defendant’s misrepresentations”); United States v. Rowe, 56 F.2d 747, 749 (C.A.2 1932) (L. Hand, J.) (“Civilly of course the mail fraud statute would fail without proof of damage, but that has no application to criminal liability”), cert. denied, 286 U.S. 554 (1932). By prohibiting the “scheme to defraud,” rather than the completed fraud, the elements of reliance and damage would clearly be inconsistent with the statutes Congress enacted . . . Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1999) (alterations and parallel citations omitted). Indeed, even earlier, we held that “[a] misrepresentation may be material without inducing any actual reliance. What is important is the intent of the person making the statement that it be in furtherance of some fraudulent purpose.” United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (citations omitted). [7] The evidence introduced at trial established that Blixt sent invoices and checks to the Atlanta office with written directions to allocate the incoming checks to old accounts to cover up the amounts she had taken. This was “in furtherance of [a] fraudulent purpose,” id., and thereby material. See Tarallo, 380 F.3d at 1182-1183 (concluding that the defendant’s misrepresentations regarding his location were material UNITED STATES v. BLIXT 15821 because they were “designed to give a false impression as to the size and nature of his own company as well as the businesses in which victims were being asked to invest”). Accordingly, we affirm Blixt’s mail fraud conviction.