Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343)
Citations
- § 1341 — Mail Fraud
- § 1343 — Wire Fraud
Elements
Mail Fraud (§ 1341)
- A scheme to defraud
- Use of the mails (U.S. Postal Service or private interstate carrier)
- For the purpose of executing the scheme
Wire Fraud (§ 1343)
Same three elements as mail fraud, but the jurisdictional hook is interstate wire communications (phone, email, internet, television, radio) rather than the mails. The wire transmission must cross state or international lines.
Key Concepts
Scheme to Defraud
A misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact with intent to harm the victim. The Supreme Court has construed the term broadly.
- Durland v. United States (1896): established that the statutes reach schemes to obtain money or property by false pretenses; not limited to common-law false representations — includes schemes involving false promises of future conduct.
Materiality
A false statement or omission is material if it is capable of influencing the victim’s decision-making.
- Neder v. United States (1999): materiality is an element of mail and wire fraud even though the text does not expressly mention it; consistent with common-law fraud background.
Mailing/Wiring Element
The mailing or wire transmission need not itself be fraudulent; it need only be in furtherance of the scheme. Routine, innocent, or ministerial communications suffice.
- Schmuck v. United States (1989): mailing of title-transfer documents by car dealers — though not themselves fraudulent — satisfied the mailing element because they were incident to and furthered the fraud.
Honest Services Fraud (§ 1346)
Added by Congress after McNally v. United States (1987), which rejected an “intangible rights” theory. § 1346 defines “scheme or artifice to defraud” to include a scheme to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
- A duty of honest services is owed by an employee to their employer or by a public official to the public.
- Skilling v. United States (2010): narrowed § 1346 to cover only bribery and kickback schemes; undisclosed conflicts of interest or self-dealing alone are insufficient. Limiting construction avoids vagueness concerns.
Related Statutes
- Bank Fraud (§ 1344): similar scheme-to-defraud elements targeting financial institutions.
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA): criminalizes unauthorized access to computers; overlaps with wire fraud in cyber-fraud contexts.
Penalties
- Up to 20 years imprisonment per count (general rule).
- Up to 30 years if the offense affects a financial institution or is connected with a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency.
- Fines and restitution also available.
Jurisdictional Basis
The statutes rest on Congress’s Commerce Clause power, using the postal system and interstate wire communications as jurisdictional hooks. Federal courts have construed both hooks broadly to police dishonesty in commercial transactions nationwide.
Key Cases
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| Durland v. United States (1896) | Broad construction; reaches schemes involving false promises, not just misrepresentations of existing fact |
| McNally v. United States (1987) | Intangible-rights theory (deprivation of honest government) rejected; statutes limited to money/property |
| Congress enacts § 1346 (1988) | Restores honest-services fraud after McNally |
| Neder v. United States (1999) | Materiality is a required element |
| Skilling v. United States (2010) | § 1346 limited to bribery and kickback schemes |
| Schmuck v. United States (1989) | Innocent mailing in furtherance of scheme satisfies § 1341 |