Page 25 - 2024 OAD First Monday in October Journal

interest at the time the statute was enacted. Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306,
314 (2023).

• McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350 (1987)

The Supreme Court reversed a mail fraud conviction premised on a scheme
where the defendants used connections within the Kentucky government to select

the State’s workmen’s compensation insurer, which in turn paid a commission back
to the defendants. The Court held that the mail fraud statute “does not refer to the

intangible right of the citizenry to good government.” Id. at 356. A criminal scheme’s
goal must be to obtain money or property in all instances of mail fraud, because “the

statute’s purpose is protecting property rights.” Id. at 357.

This conclusion was also supported by the Rule of Lenity and federalism:

Rather than construe the statute in a manner that leaves its outer boundaries
ambiguous and involves the Federal Government in setting standards of

disclosure and good government for local and state officials, we read § 1341
as limited in scope to the protection of property rights. If Congress desires to

go further, it must speak more clearly than it has. Id. at 360.

• Carpenter v. U.S., 484 U.S. 19 (1987)
The Supreme Court upheld convictions based on a scheme to tip off individuals

who would trade on confidential information regarding stock evaluations that were
about to be published in the Wall Street Journal. The Court explained that “[c]

onfidential business information has long been recognized as property.” Id. at 26.
Accordingly, the Journal “had a right to decide how to use it prior to disclosing it to

the public.” Id. It did not matter the Journal did not suffer a monetary loss from this
scheme: “[I]t is sufficient that the Journal has been deprived of its right to exclusive

use of the information, for exclusivity is an important aspect of confidential business
information and most private property for that matter.” Id. at 26–27.

23