In this article, we examine a recent limitation placed by the Second Circuit on federal prosecutors’ ability to charge extraterritorial wire fraud cases—one that could provide opportunities for defense attorneys to challenge those cases, which are being brought more frequently in our increasingly interconnected world.

Background

For many years running, wire fraud has been the most frequently used statute in federal criminal prosecutions. As Judge Rakoff wrote during his tenure as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, the wire fraud statute (along with its ancestor, the mail fraud statute) is “our Stradivarius, our Colt 45, our Louisville Slugger, our Cuisinart—and our true love.” Jed S. Rakoff, The Federal Mail Fraud Statute (Part I), 8 Duq. L. Rev. 771, 771 (1980). Federal prosecutors have used wire fraud to reach increasingly expansive categories of conduct—charging defendants with perpetrating international bribery schemes, misappropriating confidential regulatory information, and depriving investors of accurate information. See, e.g., United States v. Boustani, No. 18 Cr. 681 (WFK) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y); United States v. Carlo, 507 F.3d 799 (2d Cir. 2007).

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]