Mail Fraud
Rule
18 U.S.C. § 1341 makes it a crime to use the mails (or private interstate carriers) in furtherance of any scheme or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. Maximum penalty: 20 years (30 years if a financial institution is affected).
Elements
- The defendant devised or participated in a scheme or artifice to defraud
- The scheme involved a material misrepresentation or omission (Neder v. United States)
- The defendant had a specific intent to defraud
- The defendant used or caused the use of the mails (or a private interstate carrier) in furtherance of the scheme
Key Sub-Issues
What constitutes “fraud”? The statute reaches farther than common law fraud. Under Durland v. United States (1896), it covers false promises about future performance, not just false statements of existing fact. The scheme “includes everything designed to defraud by representations as to the past or present, or suggestions and promises as to the future.”
Materiality: Under Neder v. United States (1999), materiality is an element — the misrepresentation must be capable of influencing a reasonable person. The common law materiality requirement was read in despite statutory silence.
Property requirement: The object of the scheme must be money or property in the victim’s hands. Intangible property rights (exclusive business information, trade secrets) qualify (Carpenter). Government regulatory interests (licenses issued in the exercise of sovereignty) do not qualify (Cleveland v. United States).
Honest services (§ 1346): A “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes depriving another of the intangible right of honest services. After Skilling v. United States (2010), § 1346 is limited to bribery and kickback schemes only — undisclosed conflicts of interest no longer suffice.
Mailing requirement: The mailing need not be the core fraudulent act; it suffices if the mailing was incident to an essential part of the scheme (Schmuck v. United States). Post-fruition mailings that are entirely irrelevant to the scheme’s success may not suffice (United States v. Maze). Intrastate mailings satisfy § 1341 (Postal Power). Wire fraud under § 1343 requires the communication to actually cross state lines.
Exceptions / Defenses
- Good faith: a sincere belief in the truth of representations negates fraudulent intent
- No materiality: false statements that would not affect a reasonable person’s decision
- No property deprivation: victim received everything bargained for (no cognizable harm)
- Post-fruition mailing with no connection to scheme success (Maze — limited holding)
Policy
Mail fraud is one of the most flexible weapons in the federal prosecutorial arsenal. It allows federal prosecution of a wide range of fraudulent schemes with a low jurisdictional hurdle (use of mails). Critics argue this creates over-federalization and excessive prosecutorial discretion. The honest services limitation in Skilling was driven in part by vagueness and federalism concerns.
Key Cases
- Durland v. United States — mail fraud extends to false promises; broader than common law fraud
- McNally v. United States — mail fraud limited to property rights; honest services struck down (pre-§ 1346)
- Skilling v. United States — § 1346 honest services limited to bribery/kickbacks after vagueness concerns
- United States v. Carpenter — intangible confidential business information qualifies as property
- Cleveland v. United States — state-issued license is not property “in the hands of” the government
- Schmuck v. United States — ongoing fraud; post-transaction mailings sufficient if scheme depends on them
- Neder v. United States — materiality is an element of mail, wire, and bank fraud statutes