preview

Mail Fraud Cases

Decent Essays
The federal mail and wire fraud statutes ban plans or schemes to defraud that includes the utilization of mail or wire communications. Both condemn deceitful conduct that may likewise come surprisingly close to other federal criminal statutes. Both may serve as money laundering offenses. Both are deserving of imprisonment for not more than 20 years; for not more than 30 years, if the victim is a financial institution or the offense is committed in times of crisis. Victims in both of these situations are entitled to restitution. Both may bring about the relinquishment of property. The mail fraud statue was introduced in the early nineteenth century and the wire fraud statute is a little more recent as it was enacted in 1952.
Mail fraud, by definition,
…show more content…
During this time, the United States Supreme Court expanded and contracted the reach of the mail fraud statute, finally merging the various components in Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989). From its origins in 1872 to approximately the middle of the twentieth century, the mail fraud statute's reach was considerable. It was only necessary that the scheme to defraud should be devised or intended to be devised and a letter placed in the post office for the purpose of executing the scheme or attempting to do so. The breadth of the statute was extended two years later when the United States Supreme Court held, to satisfy the mailing requirement, it is sufficient for the mailing to be incident to an essential part of the scheme or a step in the plot. This broad standard remained until Kann v. United States, 322 U.S. 88 (1944). In Kann v. United States, the defendants were corporate officers and directors who were accused of creating a dummy corporation in order to divert profits into their own pockets. As part of this fraudulent scheme, the defendants “allowed” the corporation to issue checks payable to the both of them. The defendants cashed the checks at local banks, which then mailed the checks to the drawee banks for collection. The court held that the mailing of the cashed checks to the drawee banks could not supply the mailing element of the mail fraud charges. The defendant's fraudulent scheme had reached fruition. "It was immaterial to them, or to any consummation of the scheme, how the bank which paid or credited the check would collect from the drawee bank. The federal mail fraud statute does not purport to reach all frauds, but only those limited instances in which the use of the mails is a part of the execution of the fraud, leaving all other cases to be dealt with by appropriate state law” (Kann, 323
Get Access