Only two elements are necessary to prove a mail fraud offense: use of the mails and a scheme to defraud. While the mails must be used in the execution of the scheme to defraud, it is not necessary that the scheme contemplate the use of the mails as an essential element. A scheme to defraud is the intentional use of false or fraudulent representations for the purpose of gaining a valuable undue advantage in working some injury to something of value held by another. The injury may be directed towards an intangible or tangible right. The jury may infer intent from actions the actor knows or should know are contrary to society's generally accepted principles of honesty and fair play. The deceit must be directed towards a material part of a bargain or an individual's valued right. The success of the scheme is of no consequence. The question which often faces the courts is at what point in time the scheme to defraud terminates. If mailings occur after the execution of the scheme, there can be no prosecution under section 1341 of the act. The United States Supreme Court has decided three cases which help to clarify this confused area, 'Kann v. United States' (1944), 'Pereira v. United States' (1954), and 'United States' v. Maze' (1974). The article provides 76 footnotes. (Author abstract modified)