18 U.S.C. § 1343
Fraud by wire, radio, or television
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. 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 6,687
cases (1,271 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005).
Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005). “The *353 question presented in this case is whether a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1343 (2000 ed., Supp. II). Because the plain terms of § 1343 criminalize such a scheme, and because this construction…”
United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008). “Williams also argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction, and that the district court constructively amended the indictment, improperly admitted evidence, and improperly applied three sentencing adjustments.”
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). “§ 1341 , or the wires to be used within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , when he acts “with knowledge that the use of the mails [or wires] will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended.”
United States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2013). “” OPINION MURGUIA, Circuit Judge: Ethan Farid Jinian was charged with fourteen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 stemming from his scheme to defraud his employer.”
United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010). “§ 371 and four counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 . The indictment alleged that the trio, along with their attorney, Arnulfo Acosta, 1 were involved in an extravagant *993 four-year Ponzi scheme 2 that ultimately defrauded investors out of more than $40 million.”
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr., 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006). “§ 1962 (d) (Count One) (“RICO conspiracy”), one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 (Count Five), one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Ethan Jinian, 712 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2013). “JINIAN SUMMARY* Criminal Law The panel affirmed a defendant’s conviction and sentence on thirteen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 stemming from a scheme to defraud his employer, Bricsnet FM America, Inc.”
Kousisis v. United States, 605 U.S. 114 (2025). “18 U. S. C. §§1343 , 1349. The charges were premised on the fraudulent-inducement theory—in other words, that petitioners had induced PennDOT to award them the painting contracts under materially false pretenses.”
United States v. Isaac Feldman, 931 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2019). “BACKGROUND A grand jury indicted Isaac Feldman and several alleged co-conspirators for one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 , 1349; one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, id.”
United States v. Byron Keith Allen, United States of Am. v. Ernest Robert Reinhardt, 491 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2007). “OPINION GREGORY, Circuit Judge: Byron Allen and Ernest Reinhardt (“Appellants”) appeal, on various grounds, their convictions for wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2000). Additionally, Reinhardt raises numerous issues concerning his seventy-month sentence.”
United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, 251 F. Supp. 3d 82 (D.D.C. 2017). “§ 1951 (Second Claim); and wire fraud, including property and honest services fraud; in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 (Third Claim).”
United States v. Marcus Taylor, 942 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2019). “In particular, they contend (1) that the evidence failed to show that they had committed wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , one of the predicates for the RICO counts, in that no evidence was introduced at trial to show that they could foresee that the paper slips the officers…”
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.