The Supreme Court has taken pains in recent years to mark the boundaries of the federal mail/wire fraud statutes. Of particular importance has been the outer limits of “property” in the context of a deprivation of “money or property.” In Kelly v. United States, 140 S.Ct. 1565, 1573 (2020), the court held that “money or property” fraud does not encompass a misuse of government regulatory powers, or a monetary loss that was “incidental” to a fraud scheme. In Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306, 316 (2023), the court held that property does not encompass a “right to control” property because the “right to valuable economic information needed to make discretionary economic decisions is not a traditional property interest.”

The “right to control” theory of liability was formulated chiefly for acts of deception which may not cause a tangible loss of money or property. Following Ciminelli, attention has now turned to a closely related question that has divided the circuit courts: whether false or misleading statements that “induce” a transaction amount to mail/wire fraud when the alleged victim gets the essential benefit of the bargain that was struck.