Home / Publications / NCJRS Abstract

PUBLICATIONS

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

NCJ Number:	75989

Title:	Survey of the Mail Fraud Act

Journal:	Memphis State University Law Review Volume:8 Issue:3 Dated:(Spring 1978) Pages:673-683

Author(s):	W P Bried

Date Published:	1978

Page Count:	11

Format:	Article

Language:	English

Country:	United States of America

Annotation:	Two elements of a mail fraud offense are discussed, a scheme to defraud is defined, and significant United States Supreme Court decisions focusing on mail fraud are highlighted.

Abstract:	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)

Index Term(s):	Fraud; Judicial decisions; Laws and Statutes; Postal crimes; US Supreme Court



	To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75989

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

Find in a Library