18 U.S.C. § 1341

Frauds and swindles

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

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, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9,896 cases (966 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Schmuck v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schmuck v. United States (1989) scotus · cites it 10× “Schmuck, a used-car distributor, was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on 12 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1341 and 1342. App. 3. The alleged fraud was a common and straightforward one.”

United States v. Davila (2017) ca1 · cites it 13× “Money or Property Mail Fraud Berroa, Julio Castro, and Geraldo Castro appeal their convictions for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . This provision proscribes use of the mails in furtherance of "any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by…”

United States v. Milovanovic (2012) ca9 · cites it 20× “We address: (1) whether breach of a fiduciary duty is an element of honest services mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346; (2) whether the superseding indictment, charging the defendants with a bribery-based scheme to defraud that breached a material relationship of trust,…”

Neder v. United States (1999) scotus · cites it 6× “Neder was indicted on, among other things, 9 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341 ; 9 counts of wire fraud, in violation of § 1343; 12 counts of bank fraud, in violation of § 1344; and 2 counts of filing a false income tax return, in violation of 26 U.”

United States v. Maze (1974) scotus · cites it 18× “Upon respondent's return to Louisville he was indicted on four counts of violation of the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1341 , and one count of violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.”

United States v. Lane (1986) scotus · cites it 8× “We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits as to whether a misjoinder under Rule 8 of the Federal *440 Rules of Criminal Procedure is subject to the harmless-error rule, [1] and to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in this case to support…”

United States v. Tamika Riley (2010) ca3 · cites it 10× “Defendant-Appellants and Cross-Appellees (“Appellants”) Sharpe James (“James”) and Tamika Riley (“Riley”) were convicted in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of three counts of mail fraud (Counts 1-3) as part of a scheme to convey City-owned…”

United States v. Williams (2008) ca11 · cites it 8× “Consequently, a federal agency's a priori decision to disburse grant funds through periodic installments neither bars criminal liability nor constitutes an unfair conversion of one offense into multiple counts.”

United States v. Joseph M. Margiotta (1982) ca2 · cites it 11× “The Government charges Margiotta with one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1976) 6 and five counts of extortion in violation of 18 U.”

Mischelle Richter v. Advance Auto Parts (2012) ca8 · cites it 8× “030 , as well as mail and wire fraud and theft of honest services under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 , 1343, and 1346. Specifically, Richter alleged that the employee purchased “thousands of parts through [Advance Auto’s] employee discount program in order to operate his side business.”

United States v. Florita Bell Griffin, Terrence Bernard Roberts, Joe Lee Walker (2003) ca5 · cites it 8× “Count 6 charged Griffin, Roberts, and Walker with mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for using the mail to deliver a pre-application for One Golden Oaks to the Honorable Lonnie Stabler, the Mayor of the City of Bryan, Texas.”

United States v. Warshak (2010) ca6 · cites it 6× “(7) The evidence was sufficient to support Warshak's convictions for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . Those convictions are therefore sustained.”

Show all 9,896 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.