Pereira et al. v. United States
347 U.S. 1 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person "causes" the mails to be used for the purpose of the mail fraud statute if they commit an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use is reasonably foreseeable. The commission of a substantive offense and a conspiracy to commit it are separate and distinct crimes for which a defendant can be convicted without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Facts:
- Petitioner Brading accosted a wealthy widow, Mrs. Gertrude Joyce, and introduced her to petitioner Pereira in El Paso, Texas.
- Pereira initiated a romantic relationship with Mrs. Joyce, falsely representing himself as a wealthy hotel owner undergoing a divorce.
- Through a series of deceptions involving fictitious oil and hotel deals, Brading and Pereira convinced Mrs. Joyce to give them thousands of dollars.
- Pereira married Mrs. Joyce, and shortly thereafter, they convinced her to invest $35,000 in a nonexistent hotel.
- To fund the investment, Mrs. Joyce had her California broker sell securities and send her a check for $35,000, drawn on a Los Angeles bank.
- Mrs. Joyce gave the check to Pereira in New Mexico; he then deposited it for collection in a bank in El Paso, Texas.
- After depositing the check, Pereira and Brading took the cashed funds and Mrs. Joyce's Cadillac and disappeared, abandoning her.
Procedural Posture:
- Pereira and Brading were charged in a three-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- A jury in the trial court convicted them on all counts, including mail fraud, transporting stolen property, and conspiracy.
- The petitioners (Pereira and Brading) appealed the convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitioners' writ of certiorari to review the case.
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 person 'cause' the use of the mails for the purposes of the mail fraud statute when they deposit a check for collection, knowing that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, even if not directly intending that the mails be used?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
Yes. A person 'causes' the mails to be used under the mail fraud statute where they perform an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen. The elements of mail fraud are a scheme to defraud and the use of mails for the purpose of executing the scheme. Here, Pereira's act of depositing a check drawn on an out-of-state bank made the subsequent mailing of that check for collection a reasonably foreseeable event. Similarly, this action constituted 'causing' the check to be transported in interstate commerce under the National Stolen Property Act. Brading was properly convicted as an aider and abettor due to his deep involvement in every stage of the fraud, from which a jury could infer he shared Pereira's criminal intent. Finally, convictions for both the substantive crimes and conspiracy do not constitute double jeopardy because conspiracy requires proof of an agreement, an element not required for the substantive offenses.
Dissenting - Justice Minton
No, as to Brading's conviction on the substantive counts. While concurring that Pereira was guilty and that both were guilty of conspiracy, the dissent argues that Brading's conviction as an aider and abettor for the substantive crimes of mail fraud and transporting stolen property should be overturned. To be an aider and abettor of these specific federal crimes, Brading must have known or reasonably foreseen that the mails or interstate commerce would be used. There is no direct evidence that Brading knew Mrs. Joyce would provide an out-of-state check. To conclude otherwise requires piling an inference (that he knew the check was from out-of-state) upon another inference (that he knew a check would be used at all), which amounts to speculation rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadened the reach of the federal mail fraud statute by cementing the 'reasonably foreseeable' standard for causation. The ruling relieves prosecutors of the burden of proving that a defendant specifically intended to use the mails, requiring only that the use of mails was a predictable consequence of their fraudulent actions. This interpretation allows for federal jurisdiction over a wide range of fraudulent schemes that might otherwise be purely state-level crimes. The decision also reinforces the 'Blockburger test' principle that conspiracy and the substantive crime are separate offenses, allowing for cumulative punishment and giving prosecutors powerful charging tools.
Unlock the full brief for Pereira et al. v. United States