Page 24 - 2024 OAD First Monday in October Journal

in DBE participation. Rather, it is the actual money paid as a result of [the] fraudulent
scheme.”

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 17, 2024 to answer three

questions presented, which have been simplified in Petitioners’ merits brief to:

Whether a scheme to induce a transaction in property through deception, but
which contemplates no harm to any property interest, constitutes a scheme

to defraud under the federal wire fraud statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

Applicable Law
A. Statutes

Wire fraud is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1343, which provides, in relevant part:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to
defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent

pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted
by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign

commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of
executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned

not more than 20 years, or both.

The wire fraud and mail fraud statutes are understood to be very similar, besides the
requirement to use either a wire or a mail service. Thus, when interpreting language

that is identical in both statutes, courts regularly apply precedent interpreting one
statute to the other.

B. Supreme Court Precedent

Despite the disjunctive language in the statutes, the Government must
demonstrate the object of a scheme is to deprive a victim of money or property

in all instances of mail or wire fraud. McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 359
(1987). Adding an originalist gloss, the Court has recently clarified that an intangible

property right satisfies this requirement if it was understood as a traditional property

22