The US Supreme Court, in Kousisis v. United States, upheld the federal wire fraud convictions of defendants charged with engaging in a “disadvantaged business enterprise fraud” scheme but declined to clearly define what makes a misrepresentation “material.” Still, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s decision left some hints about materiality which will be increasingly important given shifting priorities at the Department of Justice.
In order to obtain payments after contracting with government agencies to paint a bridge, defendants in Kousisis fraudulently certified that certain work on the project had been performed by a “disadvantaged business enterprise,” as the terms of the contract required for payment. In fact, that work was performed by a non-DBE company, and the named DBE company was only used as a “pass-through.”
The defendants argued that the prosecution was barred by precedent that forbade prosecutors from using the wire fraud statute where the primary goal of a scheme was to deceive the government in its capacity as a regulator, rather than to obtain the government’s interests in property.
The defendants also argued that because the contracting agency received the full economic benefit of its bargain, the prosecution was an impermissible end-run around the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ciminelli v. United States, when the court...
For weeks, Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill have falsely claimed their bill cutting taxes and Medicaid would reduce federal budget deficits, with only a few breaking from the part...