The question
Whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter a transaction through materially false pretenses can be convicted of federal wire fraud when the defendant did not seek to cause the victim any economic loss.
Kousisis v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed the wire fraud convictions of Kousisis and Alpha Painting. A defendant who induces a victim into a transaction under materially false pretenses can be convicted of federal fraud even without seeking to cause economic loss. The text of Section 1343 does not mention or require economic loss, and the defendants satisfied every element when they obtained tens of millions of dollars from PennDOT through false representations about their compliance with the disadvantaged-business requirement. A scheme can still be wire fraud even if the defendant provides something of value in return.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Barrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson
Section 1343 requires the Government to prove a scheme to defraud with money or property as an object, but it does not mention or require economic loss to the victim. Kousisis and Alpha satisfied every element by obtaining tens of millions of dollars from PennDOT through false representations about their compliance with the disadvantaged-business requirement. A scheme can still be wire fraud even if the defendant provides something of value in return, because money or property is no less obtained when something else is given for it. The common-law presumption that fraud carries its old meaning applies only where the term had a settled meaning, and at common law false-pretenses and rescission actions generally did not require proof of economic loss.
Concurring
Thomas, writing alone
Thomas filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus states its existence and location but does not set out its reasoning.
Concurring in part and in the judgment
Gorsuch, writing alone
Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. He agreed with the outcome and with part of the Court's reasoning. The syllabus states its existence and location but does not set out the substance of his separate reasoning.
Concurring in the judgment
Sotomayor, writing alone
Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. She agreed with the outcome but not necessarily the Court's reasoning. The syllabus states its existence and location but does not set out the substance of her separate reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that a defendant who induces a victim into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause economic loss.
Source: syllabus, Held
The text of Section 1343 does not mention economic loss or require it.
Source: syllabus, Held
A scheme may still constitute wire fraud even if the defendant provides something of value in return, because money or property is no less obtained when something else is given for it.
Source: syllabus, Held
Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Thomas filed a concurrence, Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, and Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Source: syllabus, lineup