Opinion ID: 359689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mail Fraud Use of Mails.

Text: 40 To establish a violation of the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the Government must prove (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) (a) mailing    for the purpose of executing the scheme. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8, 74 S.Ct. 358, 362, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954); United States v. Brown, 540 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1976). In United States v. Brown,supra, 540 F.2d at 375-76, the court noted (t)he mailing element of the crime    consists of two requirements: (1) that the defendant caused the use of the mails and (2) that this use was 'for the purpose of executing' the deceptive scheme. The defendant need not specifically intend the use of the mails if such use was a reasonably foreseeable possibility in furthering the transaction. Pereira v. United States, supra, 347 U.S. at 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358. See also United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 399, 94 S.Ct. 645, 38 L.Ed.2d 603 (1973). 41 Rabbitt contends the use of the mails in connection with S.B. 110 was not reasonably foreseeable and consequently he should have been acquitted of the mail fraud charge relating to S.B. 110. 13 We disagree. 42 The Government established that the Motor Car Dealers Association of Greater Kansas City mailed a letter containing a $5,000 check to Lindenbusch. The check, which Worn delivered to Connaghan, was a contribution toward Connaghan's $20,000 fee. Worn served as a liaison for a statewide organization. He hired Connaghan on behalf of the entire group. A request for a $20,000 fee from an organization made up of members residing in different areas of the state would likely produce mailing of checks to make up the fee fund. 43 We think the evidence was sufficient to establish the mailing charged in the indictment as reasonably foreseeable, and we reject Rabbitt's claim to an acquittal on count XIV. 44