United States v. Shellef and Rubenstein

How courts have described this case

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

• mail and wire fraud statutes reach “schemes that depend for their completion on a misrepresentation of an essential element of the bargain”
• buyers falsely represented intent to redistribute chemicals domestically in bargain to pay distributor asking price for chemicals
• “Where a jury is presented with multiple theories of conviction, one of which was invalid, the jury’s verdict must be overturned if it is impossible to tell which theory formed the basis for conviction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “We do not think, then, that the 1999 Tax Count — which might have been joined with either the 1996 Tax Counts or the [non-tax] counts — provides an adequate link between the 1996 Tax Counts and the non-tax counts to justify joinder of all the charges against Shellef.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).