October Term 2004 · Docket 03-725

Does federal wire fraud law cover tax evasion against foreign governments?

The dispute centers on whether U.S. prosecutors can charge individuals for defrauding foreign tax authorities.

Official caption
Pasquantino v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The government claims the fraud scheme creates collateral U.S. criminal conduct.

    the sides that brought the case claim the revenue rule prohibits this specific prosecution.

    Justice Scalia questioned the applicability of reciprocity statutes to this case.

    Justice Ginsburg noted that no U.S. law is violated by foreign tax enforcement.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the reach of federal fraud statutes against foreign sovereigns.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 9, 2004.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government seeks to uphold the wire fraud conviction.

the sides that brought the case seek to dismiss the charges as unauthorized.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues the statute protects U.S. interests from collateral crime.

the sides that brought the case argue the revenue rule bars enforcing foreign tax laws.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if reciprocity statutes imply exclusion of Canada.

Justice O'Connor asked if the case avoids indirect enforcement of foreign law.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the boundary of federal fraud jurisdiction over foreign states.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON