Court Opinion

ID: 9463265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:02:01.161428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:00.481110
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The indictment charged the appellant with mail fraud. The scheme called for the sale by appellant’s corporation of franchises.
On the question as to whether the newspapers carrying the advertisements of the franchises were “significant” the majority finds that this case parallels the Eighth Circuit case of Atkinson v. U. S., 344 F.2d 97. In Atkinson there were over 7,000 of the newspapers mailed. Here there were 1195. In Atkinson the sales were primarily promoted by newspaper advertising, although it does not appear that those who were defrauded received their newspapers through the mail. Here the fraudulent sales were promoted primarily by personal solicitation. It does not appear that any of those who were defrauded ever saw the advertising in a newspaper that was in the mail. In this case 97.2 per cent of the newspapers were delivered by carrier and only 2.8 per cent were mailed. This is insignificant; it is de minimis. Atkinson stands alone and is not binding on this Court.
The “lulling letters”, so called, were sent in an effort to sell stock to those who had theretofore purchased franchises. The scheme to sell franchises was at an end. Here, and it needs repetition, the fraudu*1326lent scheme alleged was for the sale of franchises, not stock. For a valid conviction the mailing must be in furtherance of the scheme.
I think the convictions should be reversed with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal. There is ample evidence of fraud but mail fraud, in my opinion, is too short a peg on which to hang a conviction.