Exactly What They Asked For: Linking Harm and Intent in Wire Fraud Prosecutions

34 Pages Posted: 17 Jul 2020

See all articles by Christina Frohock

Christina Frohock

University of Miami - School of Law

Marcos Jimenez

White & Case LLP

Date Written: June 23, 2020

Abstract

Recent opinions have obscured the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s guidance on federal criminal fraud prosecutions. In 2016, the court decided United States v. Takhalov and found no crime of wire fraud where the alleged victims received the benefit of their bargain. Just three years later, the concurring opinion in United States v. Feldman criticized that prior reasoning as puzzling, inviting problematic interpretations that become untethered from the common law of fraud. This Article tracks the development of the court’s view and argues for an interpretation of Takhalov that links harm to the specific intent necessary for a federal criminal fraud charge.

Keywords: Criminal law, white collar, fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, Takhalov, Feldman, Eleventh Circuit

Suggested Citation

Frohock, Christina and Jimenez, Marcos, Exactly What They Asked For: Linking Harm and Intent in Wire Fraud Prosecutions (June 23, 2020). University of Miami Law Review, Vol. 74, No. 4, 2020, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3635441

Christina Frohock (Contact Author)

University of Miami - School of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33146
United States

Marcos Jimenez

White & Case LLP ( email )

First Union Financial Center
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131-2352
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
13
Abstract Views
50
PlumX Metrics