Section 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

216 Citing briefs

  1. Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. et al v. Coventry First LLC, et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 53 AMENDED MOTION for Reconsideration re; 41 Memorandum & Opinion,, re: Motion to Dismiss Complaint.AMENDED MOTION for Reconsideration re; 41 Memorandum & Opinion,, re: Motion to Dismiss Complaint.. Document

    Filed August 24, 2007

    Defendants conspired within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c). In particular, Defendants conspired to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1961(5) and § 1962(c), to wit: (a) Multiple instances of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; and (b) Multiple instances of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. 33 Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 54 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 49 of 56 106.

  2. Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. et al v. Coventry First LLC, et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 58 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed September 21, 2007

    Such intra-office communications do not satisfy § 1343’s interstate transmission requirement. “The wire fraud statute [18 U.S.C. § 1343] requires that the defendant communicate by wire in interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. Purely intrastate communication [is] beyond the statute’s reach.” Cofacredit, 187 F.3d at 243 (emphasis added) (quotation and citation omitted).

  3. Glass et al v. Fieldwood Energy Llc et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed January 19, 2017

    72 This repeated failure to specify how the messages were conveyed is important. Beyond failing to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b), Plaintiffs fail to give defendants notice of which statute they allegedly violated—mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, or wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The distinction is critical, because intrastate wire communications are beyond the reach of the wire-fraud statute.

  4. eBay Inc. v. Digital Point Solutions, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Stay of Proceedings; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof

    Filed October 16, 2009

    . Here, as noted above, the underlying factual and legal issues significantly overlap, particularly with respect to the alleged wire fraud violations under 18 U.S.C. §1343. As such, there is a greater likelihood that the issuance of a stay will promote judicial economy.

  5. Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. et al v. Coventry First LLC, et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 58 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed October 19, 2007

    Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co., 187 F.3d 229, 243 (2d Cir. 1999). Even if that were true, the argument is irrelevant; the complaint identifies numerous other communications that plainly satisfy the interstate transmission requirement of §§ 1341 and 1343 and that Defendants do not and cannot challenge. E.g., SAC ¶¶ 84(e) (communication between New York and Pennsylvania), (f) (same), (g) (interstate e-mailing of falsified offer sheets), (p) (communications between Pennsylvania and California, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey and New York); (q) (same), (r) (communications between Pennsylvania and New York), (s) (same); see also id.

  6. Ross et al v. Balderas et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed November 30, 2016

    See Harberson v. Hilton Hotel Corp., 616 F. Supp. 864, 866 (D. Colo. 1985); Creech v. Fed. Land Bank, 647 F. Supp. 1097, 1099 (D. Colo. 1985). DEFENDANT LYNN PICKARD’S MOTION TO DISMISS – Page 8 of 13 Case 1:16-cv-01121-PJK-SMV Document 72 Filed 11/30/16 Page 8 of 13 Section 1343, use the phrase “interstate or foreign commerce,” its application is necessarilylimited to such commerce by virtue of the limited powers granted to the federalgovernment under Article I of the United States Constitution.

  7. Wimo Labs LLC v. eBay Inc et al

    Opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action of the First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12

    Filed January 5, 2016

    See Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining plaintiff who stated false advertising claim under the Lanham Act also properly stated a RICO claim); and Sebastian Int’l, Inc. v. Russolillo, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (finding designer and distributor of hair care products properly stated Lanham Act and RICO claims against retailers and distributors arising from alleged distribution of counterfeit products). Here, as in Newcal and Sebastian, the FAC describes multiple examples of eBay’s wire fraud in support of its misappropriation of Plaintiff’s intellectual property through the promotion, sale, and shipment of Fake Lunatik Products for profit pursuant to Defendants’ “scheme or artifice to defraud and for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. See, e.g., 58 ECF 105:24-108:4.1 Contrary to eBay’s assertion, the FAC’s allegations describing eBay’s business strategy to reap tremendous profits from the sale of fake products, furthered by its intentional solicitation of prospective buyers to purchase Fake Lunatik Products by 1 eBay’s attempt to justify its direct solicitation of buyers using false information on the ground that the law “[s]ome contemporary knowledge of which particular listings are infringing or will infringe in the future is necessary” (see 64 ECF 29:12-24) ignores the allegations of the FAC.

  8. USA v. Robson et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed December 15, 2015

    A. Defendants’ Arguments Are Misplaced Because Their Prosecution Does Not Involve an Extraterritorial Application of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The defendants’ due process arguments hinge on an underlying assertion that their prosecution involves an “extraterritorial” application of “a federal criminal statute,” namely 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Id.

  9. United States of America v. Majhor

    Memorandum iof Points and Authorities n Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction.

    Filed May 13, 2010

    24. WHEREFORE, the United States requests, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345, that the Court issue a temporary restraining order and an injunction, restraining defendant, pending the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminarily injunction, from further violating 18 U.S.C.§ 1341 (Mail Fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), and 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Bank Fraud) through the use of Registered Bonded Promissory Notes and other related documents as more fully described in the Proposed Temporary Restraining Order. Dated this 13th day ofMay, 2010.

  10. USA v. Pawlowski et al

    MOTION to Admit Recordings and Transcripts

    Filed December 7, 2017

    1 (Counts 3, 12, and 14); nine counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341 (Counts 20-28); nine counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343 (Counts 29-37); six counts of honest services wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1343, 1346 (Counts 38-43); two counts of honest services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1346 (Counts 44-45); three counts of Travel Act bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1952 (Counts 46-48); and seven counts of material false statements to the FBI, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001 (Counts 49-55). Case 5:17-cr-00390-JS Document 49 Filed 12/07/17 Page 3 of 13 b. James Hickey with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and honest services fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371 (Count One); two counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341 (Counts 27 and 28); four counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343 (Counts 34 through 37); four counts of honest services wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1343, 1346 (Counts 40 through 43); and two counts of honest services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1346 (Counts 44 and 45). c. Scott Allinson with conspiracy to commit federal program bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 371 (Count One); and attempted federal program bribery-offering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 666(a)(2) (Count 19). 2. At trial in this matter, the government intends to offer into evidence: a. audio recordings of telephone conversations of the above defendants, captured during court-authorized Title III wiretaps from approximately November 2014 to June 2014. b. audio and video recordings of consensual telephone conversations and meetings between the defendants and cooperating government witnesses, made from approximately June 2014 to July 2015. 3. At the time the audio recordings are played aloud, the Government will move to distribute transcripts of the conversations to the jury, which can be admitted as an aid to the jury to be use