Because the character, language, and scope of the mail and wire fraud statutes are similar, legal analysis and case law that discuss mail fraud offenses are equally applicable to wire fraud offenses. Likewise, legal analysis and case law that concerns wire fraud offenses can be applied to mail fraud offenses. Section II of this article analyzes the elements that must be proven in order to establish a mail or wire fraud offense. Currently, in order to be convicted of a mail or wire fraud offense, prosecutors must show that the defendant perpetrated a scheme to defraud that included a material deception; with the intent to defraud; while using the mails, private commercial carriers, and/or wires in furtherance of that scheme; that did result or would have resulted in the loss of money or property, or the deprivation of honest services. Section III examines the available defenses. One defense is the defendant's "good faith" belief that allegedly fraudulent representations were true, negating the element of fraudulent intent. Another defense pertains to the statute of limitations for mail and wire fraud schemes, which is generally 5 years; however, if the scheme affects a financial institution, the statute of limitations is 10 years. Section IV reviews the venue considerations. The discussion notes that for mail fraud, the appropriate venue is in the district where the defendant placed the letter in the mail, the district where the defendant received the letter from the mail, or the district where the defendant knowingly caused the letter to be delivered. For wire fraud, however, the mere "passing through" of a transmission is sufficient to establish venue. Section V addresses sentencing issues under the mail and wire fraud statutes. 170 notes