Editing Mail and wire fraud (section)

==Case law==
In ''[[McNally v. United States]]'' (1987), the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 did not reach honest services fraud.<ref>''[[McNally v. United States]]'', 483 U.S. 350 (1987).</ref> Congress responded by passing 18 U.S.C. § 1346. In ''[[Skilling v. United States]]'' (2010), the Court construed § 1346 to apply only to bribes and kickbacks.<ref>''[[Skilling v. United States]]'', 30 S. Ct. 2896 (2010).</ref>

''United States v. Regent Office Supply Co.'' (1970) involves Regent which was a company that sold orders over a telephone. Regent representatives would exaggerate their office products over the phone. The United States government charged the company with wire fraud.<ref>{{cite web |title=949. PROOF OF FRAUDULENT INTENT |url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-949-proof-fraudulent-intent |website=Department of Justice|date=February 19, 2015 }}</ref> The company's salesmen were accused of making "false pretenses" over the phone.<ref>{{cite web |title=US v Regent |url=https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c7acadd7b049347e48fc |access-date=16 May 2022}}</ref> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] ruled that the "repugnant" conduct of the company did not amount to criminality.

''Lustiger v. United States'', 386 F.2d 132 ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]], 1967), involved a real estate advertisement mail fraud. The defendant stated that as a salesman he had engaged in [[puffery]].

In ''United States v. Takhalov'' (2016), female nightclub employees would pose as tourists, engage with potential customers, and lure them into nightclubs owned by Takhalov. The employees would express romantic interest in the customers and not reveal that they were club employees.<ref>{{cite web |title=United States v. Takhalov |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-takhalov-4 |website=Case Text}}</ref> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|11th Circuit]] ruled that Takhalov deceived their customers, but this deception didn't amount to defrauding the customers under the Wire Fraud statute.