McNally v. United States

Last updated
McNally v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 22, 1987
Decided June 24, 1987
Full case nameCharles J. McNally and James E. Gray v. United States of America
Citations483 U.S. 350 ( more )
107 S. Ct. 2875; 97 L. Ed. 2d 292; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2878
Case history
Prior790 F.2d 1290 (6th Cir. 1986), cert. granted, 479 U.S. 1005(1986).
Holding
The scope of the federal mail fraud statute is limited to the protection of money and property rights, and does not extend to the rights of the citizenry to good government.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor  · Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Scalia
DissentStevens, joined by O'Connor
Laws applied
18 U.S.C. § 1341
Superseded by
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 [1]
(codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1346)

McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the federal statute criminalizing mail fraud applied only to the schemes and artifices defrauding victims of money or property, as opposed to those defrauding citizens of their rights to good government. The case was superseded one year later when the United States Congress amended the law to specifically include honest services fraud in the mail and wire fraud statutes.

Contents

Background of case

Julian Carroll became Governor of Kentucky in 1974; that same year, Howard P. Hunt became the chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party. Kentucky purchased workmen's compensation insurance from Wombwell Insurance Agency; Hunt conspired with Robert Tabeling, the vice president of the insurance agency, to award the state's insurance business to Wombwell in exchange for kickbacks being sent to other insurance agencies specified by Hunt. $200,000 in kickbacks made it to Seton Investments, Inc., which was nominally headed by Charles McNally but actually run by Hunt and Carroll's Secretary of Public Protection and Regulation, James E. Gray. McNally received $75,500 for acting as frontman for Seton, while Hunt and Gray used the rest of the money to purchase condominiums in Florida and an automobile, among others. [2]

In 1983, Hunt, McNally, and Gray were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of mail fraud for defrauding the citizens of Kentucky of "their right to have the Commonwealth's business and its affairs conducted honestly, impartially, free from corruption, bias, dishonesty, deceit, official misconduct, and fraud", and of "money and other things of value", using the United States mail. [2] Hunt pleaded guilty to mail and tax fraud, and he was sentenced to three years in prison. [3] Six of the eight charges against the defendants were dismissed before the trial, but they were convicted by a jury on the remaining two counts of conspiracy and fraud. [2]

Appeal

McNally and Gray appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that Hunt's fraud, which they had been convicted of abetting, was not honest services fraud because he had no fiduciary duty to the people of Kentucky. The Sixth Circuit, noting Gray's fiduciary duty to the people of Kentucky as Secretary of Public Protection and Regulation, concluded that Hunt also had a fiduciary duty to the people of Kentucky as a de facto public official due to his substantial participation in governmental affairs and "de facto control" of the awarding of the insurance contract to Wombwell. [2]

The appellants also argued that their rights to due process of law were violated by the indictment, contending that it failed to allege that Hunt and Gray had a fiduciary duty to the citizens of Kentucky, a fact of which they necessarily had to be informed in order to understand the elements of the charges against them. The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument as well, stating that the indictment contained sufficient information for the defendants to be apprised of the charges, including the identification of the roles Hunt and Gray played in the conspiracy to defraud. [2]

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions on May 12, 1986. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and reversed the decision of the lower court; the case was argued before the Court on April 22, 1987, and decided on June 24 of that year.

Decision

Majority

Justice White wrote the opinion of the Court, holding that the federal mail fraud statute only protected money and property, not the public's intangible right to honest government:

Rather than construe the statute in a manner that leaves its outer boundaries ambiguous and involves the Federal Government in setting standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials, we read 1341 as limited in scope to the protection of property rights. If Congress desires to go further, it must speak more clearly than it has. [3]

The law, passed in 1872 during a postal law recodification, originally only criminalized "any scheme or artifice to defraud." In March 1909, Congress added another clause, reading "or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." In McNally, the Court therefore concluded that Congress intended the mail fraud statute's scope to be limited to protecting money and property, [3] citing its ruling in United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., which stated that "when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite. We should not derive criminal outlawry from some ambiguous implication." [4]

The convictions of McNally and Gray were thus reversed.

Dissent

Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that "nothing in the words 'any scheme or artifice to defraud,' or in the purpose of the statute, justifies limiting its application to schemes intended to deprive victims of money or property." [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

Bank fraud is the use of potentially illegal means to obtain money, assets, or other property owned or held by a financial institution, or to obtain money from depositors by fraudulently posing as a bank or other financial institution. In many instances, bank fraud is a criminal offence. While the specific elements of particular banking fraud laws vary depending on jurisdictions, the term bank fraud applies to actions that employ a scheme or artifice, as opposed to bank robbery or theft. For this reason, bank fraud is sometimes considered a white-collar crime.

Mail fraud and wire fraud are terms used to describe the use of a physical or electronic mail system to defraud another. It is a federal crime in the United States. Jurisdiction is claimed by the federal government if the illegal activity crosses interstate or international borders.

The U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey is the chief federal law enforcement officer in New Jersey. On December 16, 2021, Philip R. Sellinger was sworn in as U.S. Attorney. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has jurisdiction over all cases prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney.

United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 482 (1868), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that statutes must be constructed reasonably.

SEC Rule 10b-5, codified at 17 CFR 240.10b-5, is one of the most important rules targeting securities fraud promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to its authority granted under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rule prohibits any act or omission resulting in fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. The issue of insider trading is given further definition in SEC Rule 10b5-1.

Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts. Therefore, it was held, a criminal defendant allegedly tried in one district for a crime committed in the other had in fact been permissibly been tried in a separate division of a single district.

United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court case.

Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346, added by the United States Congress in 1988, which states "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."

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. The case involves former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and the honest services fraud statute, which prohibits "a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services". The Court found the statute vague, meaning it was written in a manner that almost anyone could be convicted of the statute by engaging in most legal activities. However, the Court refused to void the statute as unconstitutionally vague. The Court decided to limit the application of the statute only to defendants who hold a fiduciary duty and they participate in bribery and kickback schemes. The Court supported its decision not to rule the statute void for vagueness on its obligation to construe and not condemn Congress' laws. Ultimately, Skilling's sentence was reduced by 10 years as a result.

<i>United States v. LaMacchia</i>

United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law.

Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the definition of "property" under the federal mail fraud statute. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that "property" for the purposes of federal law did not include state video poker licences because such transactions were not a vested right or expectation.

Several statutes, mostly codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, provide for federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States. Federal prosecutions of public corruption under the Hobbs Act, the mail and wire fraud statutes, including the honest services fraud provision, the Travel Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) began in the 1970s. "Although none of these statutes was enacted in order to prosecute official corruption, each has been interpreted to provide a means to do so." The federal official bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) 15 U.S.C. § 78dd, and the federal program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666 directly address public corruption.

Criminal law in the Waite Court

During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases. In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice. Notable cases include United States v. Cruikshank (1875), United States v. Reese (1875), Reynolds v. United States (1878), Wilkerson v. Utah (1879), the Trade-Mark Cases (1879), Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), Pace v. Alabama (1883), United States v. Harris (1883), Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), Hurtado v. California (1884), Clawson v. United States (1885), Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), United States v. Kagama (1886), Ker v. Illinois (1886), and Mugler v. Kansas (1887).

Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal law and procedure. By a 5–4 margin it upheld the mail fraud conviction of an Illinois man and resolved a conflict among the appellate circuits over which test to use to determine if a defendant was entitled to a jury instruction allowing conviction on a lesser included charge. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority; Antonin Scalia for the dissent.

Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified the application of the federal bank fraud statute to cases where a defendant intends to only defraud a customer of the bank, rather than the bank itself.

Conspiracy against the United States, or conspiracy to defraud the United States, is a federal offense in the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The crime is that of two or more persons who conspire to commit an offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States.

Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute.

References

  1. ↑ "H.R. 5210 (100th): Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988". GovTrack. Retrieved 18 May 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 United States v. Gray, 790F.2d1290 (6th Cir.1986).
  3. 1 2 3 4 McNally v. United States, 483U.S.350 ( Supreme Court of the United States 1987).
  4. ↑ United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation, 344U.S.218 ( Supreme Court of the United States 1952).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.