United States v. Walters
Citation: 997 F.2d 1219 (7th Cir. 1993)
Facts
Norby Walters, a sports agent, entered into secret contracts with college athletes before their eligibility expired, promising them money in exchange for signing with him upon graduation. He was charged with wire fraud and mail fraud for defrauding the universities of the athletes’ eligibility.
Issue
Does depriving a university of its right to enforce its own eligibility rules — as opposed to depriving it of money or tangible property — constitute wire fraud?
Holding
No. The wire fraud statute requires a scheme to obtain money or property. Depriving a university of the intangible right to enforce its own rules is not a deprivation of “money or property” within the meaning of the mail and wire fraud statutes after McNally v. United States.
Rule
Wire fraud — money or property requirement: Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) requires a scheme to defraud another of money or property. Intangible rights — including a university’s right to honest services or to enforce eligibility rules — do not constitute “property” for purposes of the statute (post-McNally).
Significance
- Applied the McNally holding limiting mail/wire fraud to money or property schemes
- The athletes’ eligibility was an intangible right held by the university — not its property
- Distinguished from cases involving deprivation of tangible property or economic rights
- Congress subsequently enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (honest services fraud) to partially reverse McNally, but that statute has its own limitations (Skilling v. United States)