Monday, September 18, 2006

Election Fraud Held Not to Be Mail Fraud

The mail fraud statute was amended by Congress after the the case of United States v. McNally to add a new definition statute, section 1346, that permitted a prosecution that deprived one of the "intangible right to honest services."  But what constitutes "honest services," and how extensive the statute will be, remains problematic to this day. 

Most recently the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in the case of United States v. Turner, holding that alleged election fraud was not encompassed within the "intangible right to honest services." The court also rejected using salaries as the "money of property" aspect of mail fraud if 1346 were not allowed as a basis for the prosecution.

The mail fraud statute is a statute with enormous breadth, and has duly been named in a dissenting opinion by former Chief Justice Burger, the "stopgap device." But as prosecutors continue to stretch the statute to new boundaries, the courts are becoming more vocal in saying that this "limitless" crime will have limits.

The decision can be found here - http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0332p-06.pdf

(esp)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2006/09/election_fraud_.html

Fraud | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d834e7b85569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Election Fraud Held Not to Be Mail Fraud:

Comments

Right, because we surely aren't being deprived of government's honest services if the election is rigged.

Sometimes the simple holdings of cases mystify me. Maybe the opinion itself would further clarify why one of the most essential (and most necessarily honest, if it's to be worthwhile) governmental functions need not be done honestly. Or rather, when it's not done honestly, why that fails to violate the statute.

Posted by: Eh Nonymous | Sep 19, 2006 7:03:06 AM

Post a comment