Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The 'Ordinary Prudence' Standard in Mail and Wire Fraud Cases
To the average layperson (and even to most criminal lawyers), it probably seems self-evident that the federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. ” 1341 and 1343) protect not only the financially or commercially astute, but also the most credulous, na've, and unsophisticated members of our society. Federal prosecutors regularly file fraud charges in cases involving transparently suspect representations and promises, and these cases typically end with guilty pleas or convictions at trial. The federal courts of appeal have long emphasized that “the monumental credulity of the victim is no shield for the accused,” Deaver v. United States, 155 F.2d 740, 744-45 (D.C. Cir. 1946), or, indeed, that “the lack of guile on the part of those generally solicited may itself point with persuasion to the fraudulent character” of the scheme. Norman v. United States, 100 F.2d 905, 907 (6th Cir. 1939). The circuit courts therefore routinely uphold fraud convictions arising out of schemes that could be readily detected by anyone applying the maxim caveat emptor.
Co-existing with these decisions, however, is another line of authority which holds that to establish the required element of a scheme to defraud, it is necessary for federal prosecutors to prove that the scheme was “reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.” Silverman v. United States, 213 F.2d 405, 407 (5th Cir. 1954). See also, e.g., United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Shepard, 396 F.3d 1116, 1124 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Goodman, 984 F.2d 235, 240 (8th Cir. 1993).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.