99-4203, 99-4205, 99-4210 U.S. v. Fernandez

Listen to this article

“In this case, the judge charged the jury: ‘In considering whether the government has proven a scheme to defraud, it is essential that one or more of the false pretenses, representations, promises and acts charged in the portion of the indictment describing the scheme be proved.’ The judge then stated that ‘[a] scheme to defraud is a scheme that is intended to deceive or cheat another and to obtain money or property or cause the loss of money or property to another or to deprive another of someone’s honest services.” Finally, the judge explained that ‘”intent to defraud” means that the acts charged were done knowingly with the intent to deceive or cheat a victim in order to cause a gain of money or property to the defendant or to deprive another of someone’s honest services.’ Again, materiality has been defined as having ‘a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.’ Gee, 226 F.3d at 891 (quotation omitted). We believe that these instructions adequately required the jury to find that the defendants made false representations which were capable of influencing, and thereby deceiving, Lyons.

Thus, these instructions viewed in their entirety adequately embraced the concept of materiality.”

Affirmed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Kanne, J.