« Maryland Governor to issue mass pardons for low-level marijuana offenses estimated to cover over 175,000 convictions | Main | "Illegitimate Choices: A Minimalist(?) Approach to Consent and Waiver in Criminal Cases" »
June 17, 2024
SCOTUS grants cert to address fraudulent inducement theory of federal criminal fraud
As explained here at SCOTUSblog, the Justice via a new order list has filled in a bit more of its still light docket for next Term:
The justices on Monday morning added four new cases to their docket for the 2024-25 term. In a list of orders from the justices’ private conference last week, the court agreed to tackle issues ranging from the burden of proof for an employer hoping to rely on an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act to the pleading standards for cases under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
One of the four cases taken up by SCOTUS today is a criminal fraud case: Kousisis v. US. Here is how the cert petition in this case presented the questions to the Court:
The circuits are split 6-5 on the validity of the fraudulent inducement theory of mail and wire fraud. The Questions Presented are:
Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme.
Whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services.
Whether all contract rights are “property.”
June 17, 2024 at 11:01 AM | Permalink
Comments
He lied to get money. It's that simple.
Posted by: Da Man | Jun 17, 2024 11:58:54 AM
Interesting in this grant is that petitioner frames the issue entirely different than the appellate court did. The Third Circuit focuses on the effect of the lie -- that the lie allowed defendants to get a government contract and receive the payments for it. The petitioners want to focus on whether the lie was central to the contract -- namely that they performed the services called for under the contract and were not, therefore, unjustly enriched. Their argument only works if you sever the lie and the terms of the contract to which it relates from the rest of the contract.
Posted by: tmm | Jun 17, 2024 2:21:33 PM
Interesting the underlying facts--the DBE angle. Government shouldn't have been doing this in the first place--Hunter should be watching this case, lol.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 17, 2024 3:38:26 PM
TMM - exactly. They lied about something the victim considered material and got the victim's money. They now want a get out of jail free card because they still painted the bridge. In my book, that confuses devising a scheme to defraud and the harm (if any) from successfully executing the scheme. I would like to predict a 9-0 affirmance - with an opinion that says "Just because we reversed in Kelly and Percoco doesn't mean it's a fraud free for all."
Posted by: Da Man | Jun 17, 2024 3:55:02 PM
Da Man, I don't think it's going to come out that way. I am of two minds--I don't like the fact that they lied, but they lied to get around a BS requirement.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 17, 2024 4:01:50 PM
Da Man --
"Just because we reversed in Kelly and Percoco doesn't mean it's a fraud free for all."
Where do I send you fan mail?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 17, 2024 4:31:06 PM
Its like appraising the value of your loan collateral highly so that you can get better terms from thh bank. Long as you pay the loan back, and dont screw around with delinquency, its no harm, no foul. I dont see the crime here. MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | Jun 17, 2024 4:33:23 PM
Federalist - it's not up to you to choose which requirements are BS. If you don't like the requirement, sue to have it declared invalid. You don't get to lie just because you're afraid that telling the truth will disqualify you (or because complying with the requirement might make your bid too high).
Posted by: Da Man | Jun 17, 2024 4:39:02 PM
Da Man, it is not up to me, unless I am on a jury. Obviously, there are serious Equal Protection problems with this nonsense, and I'd rather just have the government follow the law. At some point, if the government ignores the law too much, then the deal is broken and no one gets to get on their high horse. Case in point--Hunter Biden and the f'in taxes that he didn't pay because the DOJ hooked him up by letting the statute run. If HUnter didn't have to pay, why the fuck should I have to pay?
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 10:06:02 AM
if there were obvious equal protection problems, the bidders-turned-defendants would have sued to invalidate the DBE program. They didn't.
Posted by: Da Man | Jun 18, 2024 10:21:52 AM
Da Man, you do realize that litigation is expensive and the bid process would be long gone. Look at the farmer handouts--that litigation is still going on.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 11:44:31 AM
Da Man, hmmm maybe we can prosecute all the Dems behind this:
https://nypost.com/2024/06/14/us-news/how-non-citizens-are-getting-voter-registration-forms-across-the-us-and-how-republicans-are-trying-to-stop-it/
Why in the world would you hand out voter registration forms to aliens unless you wanted to allow aliens to vote? This is a real threat to our democracy.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 11:55:03 AM
Let's go Brandon! https://nypost.com/2024/06/18/us-news/migrant-arrested-for-allegedly-sexually-assaulting-13-year-old-girl-in-nyc-park/
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 11:55:25 AM
federalist --
"Why in the world would you hand out voter registration forms to aliens unless you wanted to allow aliens to vote?"
DING DING DING
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 18, 2024 2:19:42 PM
So basically a party is trying to undermine our democracy, and we aren't allowed to contest elections . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 2:22:37 PM
Finally the truth comes out!!!!:
So basically a party is trying to undermine our democracy, and we aren't allowed to contest elections . . . .
By this, I take Federalist to say that it was okay to claim falsely that the 2020 election was stolen because Democrats are such an existential threat that they cannot be allowed to hold power. While reprehensible, at least it's more honest than claiming there were election irregularities, promising you have the evidence, but never producing it for inspection and critical review.
Posted by: Da Man | Jun 18, 2024 2:40:58 PM
Da man, illegals vote. And your party got rid of ballot integrity rules. And, on top of that, the government censored the laptop story, and Biden colluded. So at a minimum, the election was unfair. So we're not allowed to fight fire with fire? So yes, the 2020 election was stolen.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 3:02:37 PM
“Your party”. No- my party doesn’t exist. Why, because I have principles. Repubs are pro-life and pro-death penalty. Dems are pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. But again, I thank you for your honesty: you effectively admitted that you have no issue with DJT claiming he was the real winner despite losing the electoral college vote. After all, the ends justify the means. If Repubs win, it was a fair contest. If Dema win, they cheated. Great narrative and great lesson you’re teaching the younger generation.
Posted by: Da Man | Jun 18, 2024 3:19:49 PM
Da man--there is no doubt Dems cheated . . .. the suppression of the laptop story . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 3:21:01 PM
So, in the words of Justice Scalia to Dems still bitter about SCOTUS's handing 2000 election to GWB, "Get over it."
But you can't. If Trump wins in November, the masters of circular arguments will claim that it proves they were right in 2020, when in fact all it will show is that voters made one choice in 2020 and made a different one in 2024, each time voting for the leas worst alternative.
Face it, Biden is a moron and DJT is an asshole. But he's a conservative asshole so he's ok by you.
Posted by: Da Man | Jun 18, 2024 3:28:45 PM
By the way, where are all those great corruption charges that were supposed to flow inexorably from the laptop?
Posted by: Da Man | Jun 18, 2024 3:30:01 PM
You cannot prosecute a sitting president.
And Da Man, government officials engaged in election interference--no, I am not going to get over it.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 3:57:08 PM
Da Man,
There is no question that the 2020 election was “rigged.” From Russian collusion, to the laptop, to ignoring laws on mail in ballots.
It’s just not clear if they “stole” it.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 18, 2024 5:10:03 PM
Da Man stated,
“After all, the ends justify the means. If Repubs win, it was a fair contest. If Dema win, they cheated. Great narrative and great lesson you’re teaching the younger generation.”
I think GHWB is the last Republican POTUS not accused of “stealing” a POTUS election.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 18, 2024 5:16:40 PM
TQ,
"I think GHWB is the last Republican POTUS not accused of “stealing” a POTUS election."
Not quite true. James Collier claims that he stole the New Hampshire primary in 1988.
https://www.amazon.com/Votescam-Stealing-James-M-Collier/dp/1974027066
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | Jun 18, 2024 5:40:27 PM
