The WSJ noted:
A string of high-profile federal prosecutions are falling apart as courts apply a newly narrowed legal definition of the crime (fraud).The Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual states
The statute does not define the phrase "obtained by fraud." Fraud is defined by nontechnical standards and is not to be restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses. One court has observed, "[t]he law does not define fraud; it needs no definition; it is as old as falsehood and as versatile as human ingenuity." Weiss v. United States, 122 F.2d 675, 681 (5th Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 (1941).
The Fourth Circuit, reviewing a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2314, also noted that "fraud is a broad term, which includes false representations, dishonesty and deceit." See United States v. Grainger, 701 F.2d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 947 (1983).
D.C. law firms wrote bulletins on the new restrictions the Court made to fraud enforcement. Here's a sampling of their advice:
"a private citizen with informal political influence could not be convicted under for honest services fraud." (Jackson Walker)
That should leave plenty of room for the PEU boys to continue their wayward non-lobbying, political influence operations.
"allegations of fraud must be grounded in a cognizable property interest, not simply a belief that the conduct was deceptive and unsavory.
......should have the effect of reining in fraud prosecutions based on intangible harms." (Akin Gump)
People can now be deceptive and unsavory and not worry about being charged for fraud. The bar continues to fall. We are on our way to a fraud free society. By simply changing the definition, poof! It's gone.
Those with the names write the rules for the game. It isn't the common person. Politicians Red and Blue love PEU and increasingly, more are one.
