Jury Instruction

1. That the Defendant knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises;
2. That the false pretenses, representations or promises related to material fact;
3. That the Defendant did so willfully and with an intent to defraud; and
4. That the Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted by wire, radio or television in interstate commerce some communication for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud.

The term “scheme to defraud” includes any plan or course of action intended to deceive or cheat someone out of money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.

A statement or representation is “false” or “fraudulent” if it relates to a material fact and is known to be untrue or is made with reckless indifference as to its truth or falsity, and is made or caused to be made with intent to defraud. A statement or representation may also be “false” or “fraudulent” when it constitutes a half truth, or effectively conceals a material fact, with intent to defraud.

A “material fact” is a fact that would be important to a reasonable person in deciding whether to engage or not to engage in a particular transaction. A fact is “material” if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the person or entity to whom or to which it is addressed. A false or fraudulent statement, representation or promise can be material even if the decision maker did not actually rely on the statement, or even if the decision maker actually knew or should have known that the statement was false.

To act with “intent to defraud” means to act with the specific intent to deceive or cheat, ordinarily for the purpose of causing some financial loss to another or bringing about some financial gain to one’s self.

It is not necessary that the Government prove all of the details alleged in the indictment concerning the precise nature and purpose of the scheme; or that the material transmitted by wire, radio, or television was itself false or fraudulent; or that the alleged scheme actually succeeded in defrauding anyone; or that the use of interstate wire, radio, or television communications facilities was intended as the specific or exclusive means of accomplishing the alleged fraud; or that the Defendant personally used the wire, radio or television communication facility.

What must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the Defendant, with intent to defraud, knowingly and willfully devised, intended to devise, or participated in, a scheme to defraud substantially the same as the one alleged in the indictment; and that the use of the interstate wire, radio or television communications facilities were closely related to the scheme because the Defendant either used, or caused to be used, wire, radio or television communications facilities in an attempt to execute or carry out the scheme.

To “cause” interstate wire, radio or television communications facilities to be used is to do an act with the knowledge that the use of such facilities will follow in the ordinary course of business or where such use can be reasonably foreseen.

Each separate use of the interstate wire, radio or television communications facilities in furtherance of a scheme to defraud constitutes a separate offense.