18 U.S.C. § 1346
Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 733
cases (90 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: United States v. Napout Et. Ano, 963 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2020).
United States v. Napout Et. Ano, 963 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2020). “1 honest services wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 . They argue also that § 1346 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to them.”
United States v. Milovanovic, 678 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2012). “§ 1341 ; [4] (2) the superseding indictment failed to adequately allege the "honest services" requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 ; [5] and (3) that the defendants' alleged fraud was completed before any use of the U.”
United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102 (E.D.N.Y 2005). “The pre-trial motions which defendants filed are as follows: (a) motion to dismiss count one of the indictment because it refers to intangible rights and is duplicitous; (b) motion to dismiss count two of the indictment because it does not allege a viable claim and because 18…”
United States v. Gray, 96 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 1996). “Indeed, the conduct in Walters occurred prior to the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 . 8 Thus, Walters holding that 18 *774 U.”
United States v. Davila, 856 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 2017). “Congress later passed a new statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 , designed to cover one of the intangible rights recognized in the pre-McNally caselaw, namely, "the intangible right of honest services.”
Comm. to Protect our Agric. Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp., 235 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (E.D. Cal. 2017). “A breach of a fiduciary duty is an element of honest services fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 . See United States v. Milovanovic, 678 F.”
United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003). “We agreed to rehear this case in banc in order to consider whether 18 U.S.C. § 1346 , which provides that “[f]or the purposes of th[e] chapter [of the United States Code that prohibits, inter alia, mail fraud, 18 U.”
United States v. Michael Bryant Brumley, 116 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 1997). “After withdrawing this opinion, the panel, with one judge dissenting, held that the term “another” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 does not reach citizens of a state or political subdivision who have been deprived of the honest services of their public officials.”
United States v. John Anthony Williams, 441 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2006). “Since Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 1346 , we have not addressed directly whether the “intangible rights” theory applies to private-sector fraud.”
United States v. Ashley Andrews, 681 F.3d 509 (3rd Cir. 2012). “2d 619 (2010), the District Court’s instruction to the jury on honest services fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 was erroneous, and prejudice from the error spilled over to the other charges against him.”
United States v. Tamika Riley, 621 F.3d 312 (3rd Cir. 2010). “It is clear that as far as a conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 , the Government did not prove that fraud occurred by means of bribes or kickback as is now required by Skilling .”
United States v. Elton E. Bryan, A/K/A Butch, 58 F.3d 933 (4th Cir. 1995). “In 1988, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1346 , which provides that for the purposes of the mail and wire fraud statutes, “the term ‘scheme or *940 artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”
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.