Marvin Lustiger v. United States
386 F.2d 132 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A scheme to defraud under the federal mail fraud statute does not require a misrepresentation of a single existing fact; it can be established through an assortment of statements which, taken as a whole, are fraudulently misleading and deceptive, including deceitful half-truths and the concealment of material facts.
Facts:
- Marvin Lustiger formed the Lake Mead Land and Water Company and acquired thousands of acres of land in Mohave County, Arizona, for a real estate development called 'Lake Mead City.'
- The company's land consisted only of the odd-numbered sections in a checkerboard pattern, with the alternating even-numbered sections owned by the federal government and used for grazing.
- Lustiger mailed promotional 'Investor’s Kits' to prospective buyers, which included a color brochure with numerous photographs of water activities and scenic views.
- The brochure claimed the development was five miles from Lake Mead, but failed to disclose that the actual driving distance was 15 to 40 miles over roads that were largely inaccessible by ordinary vehicles.
- Advertisements prominently featured a photo of a 'Favorite swimming hole,' which was actually a muddy stock tank for cattle on private land not owned by the company.
- The materials advertised 'Plenty of Water' but failed to disclose that the only available water source for most lots was a single well located up to 28 miles away.
- The development was marketed as a 'planned community' and 'an enchanted city in the making,' though at the time of the sales, it consisted of only a small field office and a temporary dwelling, with no plan for housing, utilities, or other community facilities.
- The brochure stated the properties were within a utility company's franchised area but omitted that the nearest power and telephone lines were 21 to 38 miles away and the company would not pay to extend service.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury returned a nineteen-count indictment against Marvin Lustiger for mail fraud in the U.S. District Court.
- Two counts of the indictment were dismissed prior to trial.
- The district court denied Lustiger's pre-trial motion to suppress evidence allegedly derived from an illegal 'mail watch.'
- Following a non-jury trial, the district court found Lustiger guilty on the remaining seventeen counts.
- Lustiger (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove a scheme to defraud.
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 a land developer's use of the mail to distribute advertising materials containing a mixture of literally true statements, half-truths, misleading photographs, and omissions of material facts constitute a scheme to defraud in violation of the federal mail fraud statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamley
Yes, a developer's advertising materials constitute a scheme to defraud when, taken as a whole, they are fraudulently misleading and deceptive. The court reasoned that mail fraud does not require a single, literally false statement. Deceitful half-truths, concealment of material facts, and the overall deceptive impression created by words and images are sufficient. Here, Lustiger's brochures used photographs and statements to create a misleadingly attractive picture of the property. For example, while Lake Mead was five miles away 'as the crow flies,' it was up to 40 miles by road, and the advertised 'swimming hole' was a cattle tank. The court found this pattern of deception, which ran through representations about water, access, utilities, and the nature of the 'city,' was reasonably calculated to deceive purchasers and thus constituted an intentional scheme to defraud. The court also rejected the argument that refund policies negate fraudulent intent, noting they do not excuse the initial deception.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the scope of mail fraud extends beyond literal falsehoods to encompass broader schemes of deception through omission and misleading implication. It establishes that courts will look at the 'net impression' of advertising materials rather than analyzing each statement in isolation. This precedent gives prosecutors greater latitude in pursuing fraud cases based on sophisticated marketing campaigns that carefully avoid direct lies but are designed to mislead consumers. The decision also affirms that industry custom is not a defense; the standard for fraud is determined by federal statute, not the prevailing practices of a particular business sector.
Unlock the full brief for Marvin Lustiger v. United States