- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 20,207
As there is confusion in some minds about what constitutes "mail fraud," I thought it might be helpful to point out what Congress and the federal courts have to say on the topic, regarding those bodies as having a degree of expertise that may even exceed that of BF members.
What does that prolixity amount to? The Supreme Court has been helpful.
Then there is also "wire fraud," sending words or images over the Internet as part of a scheme to defraud:
Violation of 18 U.S. Code � 1343 requires
(1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses,
(2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and
(3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme.[/quote]
United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme.").
What is "fraud"? - inducing another to change his position to his disadvantage in reliance on a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.
Neither the statutes, nor any case law I can find, restrict the offense to a sale. Indeed, the statutes expressly list: "sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply. . . ."
I, of course, will defer to the experts who assert that a Paypal "gift" in itself precludes a conviction under these statutes when they come up with any authority for that position.
A single incident is harder to see as fraud, but not impossible.
A mere failure to perform an agreement is not fraud. However, facing decades in the federal slam (no time off), I would err in the direction of avoiding any hint of violating either of these federal statutes.
But that's just me.
What does that prolixity amount to? The Supreme Court has been helpful.
Then there is also "wire fraud," sending words or images over the Internet as part of a scheme to defraud:
Violation of 18 U.S. Code � 1343 requires
(1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses,
(2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and
(3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme.[/quote]
United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme.").
What is "fraud"? - inducing another to change his position to his disadvantage in reliance on a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.
Neither the statutes, nor any case law I can find, restrict the offense to a sale. Indeed, the statutes expressly list: "sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply. . . ."
I, of course, will defer to the experts who assert that a Paypal "gift" in itself precludes a conviction under these statutes when they come up with any authority for that position.
A single incident is harder to see as fraud, but not impossible.
A mere failure to perform an agreement is not fraud. However, facing decades in the federal slam (no time off), I would err in the direction of avoiding any hint of violating either of these federal statutes.
But that's just me.
