In our recent article, we reviewed the briefing in Kousisis v. United States, O.T. 2024 (No. 23-909), an appeal that considers the viability of the fraudulent inducement theory, under which the government argues that deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme. The defense argued that in the absence of an intent to cause harm to the victim’s property, there could be no wire fraud.

On Dec. 9, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case. The Court appeared divided on the issue. Several justices appeared to share the views of Petitioners, emphasizing concerns about federalism and broad prosecutorial discretion — concerns repeatedly expressed by the Court in the context of interpreting other broadly-worded federal criminal statutes.

To continue reading Harry Sandick and Caitlyn Wigler's article on Law.com, please click here.