Kann v. United States
1944 U.S. LEXIS 1206, 65 S. Ct. 148, 323 U.S. 88 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal mail fraud statute requires that the use of the mails be for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud. A mailing that occurs after the scheme has reached fruition and the perpetrators have received their money is not for the purpose of executing the scheme and therefore does not violate the statute.
Facts:
- Kann, the President of Triumph Explosives, Inc., and other executives devised a scheme to divert company profits to themselves.
- They created a separate corporation, Elk Mills Loading Corporation, and awarded it a lucrative subcontract from Triumph.
- The profits from Elk Mills were then paid to the defendants as salaries and bonuses for which no substantial services were rendered.
- As part of the scheme, several defendants fraudulently obtained a payment check from a contractor named Jackson for timber they did not own.
- In another instance, a defendant named Willis received a fraudulent bonus check from Elk Mills for $5,000.
- The defendants cashed these checks at local banks and received the money.
Procedural Posture:
- Kann and six co-defendants were indicted in a U.S. District Court for using the mail to execute a scheme to defraud.
- Kann’s co-defendants pleaded nolo contendere.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Kann on two counts of the indictment.
- Kann appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of the mail by collecting banks to clear checks, after the defendants have already cashed them and irrevocably received the proceeds of a fraudulent scheme, satisfy the statutory requirement that the mailing be 'for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice'?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts
No. The use of the mail by banks to clear checks after the defendants have already received the proceeds does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the mailing be 'for the purpose of executing' the fraudulent scheme. The court reasoned that the objective of the fraudulent scheme was to obtain money, and this objective was fully accomplished, or reached 'fruition,' the moment the defendants cashed the checks and received the funds. The subsequent mailing of the checks between the cashing bank and the drawee bank was a routine banking transaction that was incidental and collateral to the scheme, not a part of its execution. It was immaterial to the defendants how the banks collected from one another, as the defendants had already irrevocably received their money.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The use of the mails to clear the checks was an essential step in the fraudulent scheme and should be considered part of its execution. The dissent argued that the scheme was a continuing venture and had not truly reached fruition merely because the defendants had cash in hand. Until the checks were honored by the drawee banks, the defendants, as endorsers, were still liable, and their payment was only conditional. Furthermore, the smooth clearance of checks through the mail was crucial to the total success of the project, preventing discovery and ensuring the conspirators would not be called upon to return the illicit funds.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of the federal mail fraud statute by establishing the 'fruition' or 'completion of the scheme' doctrine. It requires prosecutors to prove that a mailing was an integral part of executing the fraud, rather than a mere incidental or subsequent event. This ruling forced a distinction between mailings used to perpetrate a fraud (e.g., sending a fraudulent invoice) and those occurring after the fraud's objective has been achieved (e.g., routine check clearing). The decision has had a lasting impact, requiring courts to analyze the precise relationship between the mailing and the fraudulent plot in mail fraud prosecutions.
