Fasulo v. United States
Headline: Mail rule limits prosecutions: Court rules sending mailed threats to extort money is not a fraud under the mail-fraud statute, blocking conviction based solely on coercion by fear and not deceit.
Holding: The Court reversed the conviction, holding that using the mail to send threats to obtain money is not a scheme to defraud under §215 because the scheme relied on coercion by fear rather than deceit.
- Stops prosecuting mailed threats as mail fraud when there is no deceit.
- Requires prosecutors to prove deceit or trickery to use §215 mail-fraud charge.
- Leaves coercive extortion to other criminal laws, not the fraud statute.
Summary
Background
The case involves a man who was indicted and convicted for conspiring to violate a federal mail-fraud statute after he and others mailed threats to obtain money. The defendant argued that the scheme used coercion and fear, not trickery or false pretenses. The government argued broadly that threats are a form of fraud and that the statute covers dishonest methods that take another’s money.
Reasoning
The Court examined the words of the statute and earlier cases, focusing on what “to defraud” ordinarily means. The opinion explains that the phrase usually refers to taking property by trick, deceit, or false pretenses—not by threats, force, or intimidation. The Court concluded that the defendants’ only method was coercion through fear, not deceit. Because the statute’s language does not fairly embrace obtaining money by threats, the Court reversed the conviction.
Real world impact
The decision narrows the mail-fraud law so that sending threats through the mail to get money is not covered unless the defendant also used deceit or false pretenses. Prosecutors must rely on other criminal laws to punish extortion or threats. The Court emphasized that criminal statutes must clearly cover the conduct before someone can be punished under them.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?