The Narrow Holding in Kousisis Shifts the Focus to “Materiality” on the Scope of the Wire and Mail Fraud Statutes

According to Krotoski, the Court addressed a narrow question and set of facts under the wire fraud statute—whether misrepresentations used to induce someone into a transaction for money or property fall within the fraud statute’s scope. The Court ruled that such conduct does meet the statute’s “money-or-property” requirement but declined to weigh in on broader scenarios, such as when a person makes a misrepresentation but still provides what was promised. 

Although the materiality requirement was not contested in Kousisis, the Court underscored its critical role in defining the limits of prosecutable fraud. Looking ahead, legal debates over the reach of federal fraud statutes are likely to focus on how materiality is interpreted and applied by courts and juries.

Click here to read the full blog post.