Exactly What They Asked For: Linking Harm and Intent in Wire Fraud Prosecutions

Authors

Christina M. Frohock, University of Miami School of Law
Marcos Daniel Jiménez

Abstract

Recent opinions have obscured the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s guidance on federal criminal fraud prosecutions. In 2016, the court decided United States v. Takhalov and found no crime of wire fraud where the alleged victims received the benefit of their bargain. Just three years later, the concurring opinion in United States v. Feldman criticized that prior reasoning as puzzling, inviting problematic interpretations that become untethered from the common law of fraud. This Article tracks the development of the court’s view and argues for an interpretation of Takhalov that links harm to the specific intent necessary for a federal criminal fraud charge.

Recommended Citation

Christina M. Frohock and Marcos Daniel Jiménez, Exactly What They Asked For: Linking Harm and Intent in Wire Fraud Prosecutions, 74 U. Mia. L. Rev. 1037 (2020)
Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol74/iss4/4