Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Mail and Wire Fraud Post 'Kelly v. United States'
Under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, it is a crime to "obtain[] money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises," or to deprive someone of the "intangible right of honest services." 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1343, 1346. The scope of these prohibitions has expanded over time. This expansion has been met with infrequent, but significant, pushback from the courts. Perhaps most prominent is the line of Supreme Court decisions which initially resisted and later narrowed the scope of "honest services" fraud. See, McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987); Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010); McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016).
In Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020), the Supreme Court turned its attention to a fraud scheme premised on "obtaining money or property." Id. at 1572. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the government's theory of "property." A unanimous court held that a scheme was not intended to "obtain property" when its objective was to misuse government officials' regulatory powers, or when monetary losses were "incidental," and not the actual object of the scheme.
Following Kelly, the meaning of property was central to two high-profile cases in the Second Circuit. In United States v. Blaszczak, 947 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2019), vacated, 141 S. Ct. 1040 (2021), the government and defendants addressed whether the misuse of confidential information concerning future government regulations amounted to obtaining property. In United States v. Gatto, 986 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 2021 WL 5869415 (Dec. 13, 2021), the Second Circuit addressed the circumstances under which a monetary loss—in this case, by universities that extended athletic scholarships—should be seen as "incidental" to the charged scheme.
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.