United States v. Michael Sheneman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding sufficient evidence where defendant took active role in misleading victim bank
• finding it “well within reason for the jury to conclude that [the defendant], given his involvement in the real estate market, could reasonably foresee that lending banks would use wire transfers to transmit loan proceeds in the course of real estate transactions”
• “[Wire fraud statute is] not intended to reach all frauds but only those ‘limited instances in which the use of the [wires] is a part of the execution of the fraud.’ ” (internal citation omitted)
• “The use of the wires need not be an essential element of the scheme; it is enough if the use is ‘incidental to an essential part of the scheme’ or ‘a step in the plot.’ ”
• “Moreover, it is not necessary for the use of the wires to contain any false or fraudulent material, and even a routine or innocent use of the wires may satisfy this element so long as that use is part of the execution of the scheme.”
• offering no explanation of what constitutes the “garden‐variety” mortgage‐fraud scheme

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).