October Term 2022 · Docket 21-1170

Does wire fraud require proof of actual economic loss?

The dispute centers on whether prosecutors must prove a victim suffered a financial loss to convict someone of wire fraud.

Official caption
Ciminelli v. United State
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion 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

    Mr. Feigin argued the right-to-control doctrine fits within property fraud scope.

    Mr. Dreeben stated the Second Circuit applied an invalid theory for decades.

    Mr. Dreeben argued the government cannot claim the theory is invalid and seek a new trial.

    Mr. Feigin noted the government could have brought the case under another theory.

    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 legal definition of property fraud. the side that brought the case argues the law requires proof of economic loss. The government argues the law only requires proof of a scheme to control property.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2022.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the conviction dismissed because the jury instructions were legally wrong.

The government wants a new trial under a different legal theory.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the right-to-control doctrine is invalid and requires proof of economic loss.

The government argues the indictment was valid and the case can proceed under a new theory.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito questioned whether the indictment was constructively amended.

Justice Jackson asked if the indictment was defective despite the specific theory used at trial.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of federal property fraud laws. It determines whether prosecutors must prove a victim lost money. It affects how courts interpret wire fraud statutes nationwide.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON