Page 28 - 2024 OAD First Monday in October Journal

noting the difference between an interest in confidential business information and

the destination of one’s products, despite the manufacturers testifying that they
would not have sold to defendant had they known the technology was bound for the

Soviet Union.

• U.S. v. Bunn, 26 F. App’x 139 (4th Cir. 2001)
(pre-Pasquantino, Kelly, and Ciminelli)

The Fourth Circuit affirmed wire fraud conviction where defendant recruited
DBEs to serve as fronts to bid on five highway construction projects. Defendant

argued that the work was done to the satisfaction of the Department of Highways,
and the only deprivation the Government can identify was “the aspirational goal of

attaining a certain level of DBE participation.” Id. at 142 (quotation marks omitted).
The Circuit rejected that argument on the basis that “the property interest at stake is

not the goal of DBE participation, but rather the actual dollars used for the highway
construction.” To prove wire fraud, the Government does not need to show a “financial

loss to the victim” but rather the “intent to obtain money or property from the victim
of the deceit.” Id. In sum, defendant “obtained money to which [he was] otherwise

not entitled by falsely representing that subcontract work would be performed by
DBEs. Nothing more is required.” Id. at 142–43.

• U.S. v. Shellef, 507 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2007)

(pre-Kelly, and Ciminelli)
The Second Circuit reversed wire fraud conviction premised on defendant defrauding

a seller of chemicals because, despite representing that he would sell the chemical at
issue entirely to foreign buyers, as it was going to be banned in the United States, he

sold much of it to domestic buyers. The Second Circuit found that the Government had
failed to satisfy the property requirement. The Circuit drew the following distinction:

Our cases have drawn a fine line between schemes that do no more than

cause their victims to enter into transactions they would otherwise avoid—
which do not violate the mail or wire fraud statutes—and schemes that

depend for their completion on a misrepresentation of an essential element
of the bargain—which do violate the mail and wire fraud statutes.

26