12/15/2023 0 Comments Mail and wire fraud examples![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Some courts have even said that the act "puts its imprimatur on the accepted moral standards and condemns conduct which fails to match the 'reflection of moral uprightness, of fundamental honesty, fair play and right dealing in the general and business life of members of society'" ( Blachly v. 306, 313 (1896), the Supreme Court rejected the contention that Congress had intended to limit the statute to fraud or false pretenses as defined by common law the Court held that the statute prohibited "everything designed to defraud by representations as to the past or present, or suggestions and promises as to the future." Following the signal sent by the opinion in Durland, the lower courts have interpreted the term "defraud" in a broad nontechnical sense. In defining the statutory phrase "scheme to defraud," the courts have given the concept an extremely broad and flexible reading. No precise definition of the concept of fraud appears either in the mail fraud statute or in the cases construing it. The twin elements of mail fraud -a scheme to defraud and a mailing -have been given a generous reading, and the Act has evolved into a flexible tool that reaches a remarkably wide range of conduct. 370, 389 (1960), reemphasized that "the fact that a scheme may violate state laws does not exclude it from the proscriptions of the federal mail fraud statute." The Mail Fraud Act is an appropriate exercise of congressional power because it does not purport to displace the states' general jurisdiction over fraud it reaches only schemes in which the mails are used. 391, 393 (1916), held that Congress has the authority to regulate the act of mailing a letter, and to prohibit any act of mailing "done in furtherance of a scheme that regards as contrary to public policy, whether it can forbid the scheme or not." Subsequently, Parr v. The Supreme Court confirmed Congress's power to prohibit the mailing of material based upon its content. Challenges to the constitutionality of the act The Wire Fraud Act is now codified as 18 U.S.C. In 1952, following the pattern of the Mail Fraud Act, Congress adopted a wire fraud statute prohibiting "interstate wire, radio, or television" transmissions to effectuate "any scheme or artifice to defraud" (An act to further amend the Communications Act of 1934, ch. The current version of the Mail Fraud Act is codified as 18 U.S.C. Federal mail fraud jurisdiction thus overlapped with, and was auxiliary to, state jurisdiction. The Mail Fraud Act, in contrast, extended federal jurisdiction to crimes clearly within the states' general jurisdiction and directly injurious only to private individuals, not to the central government. The adoption of this statute, commonly known as the Mail Fraud Act, was an important turning point in the use of federal criminal sanctions, which previously had been reserved principally for conduct directly injurious to the federal government. This provision evoked almost no discussion in Congress, so there is little legislative history to provide guidance to the courts. As part of a general revision of the postal laws, Congress made it a crime to mail material intended to effectuate "any scheme or artifice to defraud" (An act to revise, consolidate and amend the statutes relating to the Post Office Department, ch. The first mail fraud legislation was adopted in 1872. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to "establish Post Offices and post Roads." This provision has been treated as authority for the continuing operation and regulation of the postal system ( McCulloch v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |