October Term 2024 · Docket 23-909

Does property fraud require harm to a traditional property interest?

the sides that brought the case argue property fraud statutes require harm to traditional property interests. The government argues the focus is on the transaction's materiality.

Official caption
Kousisis v. United States
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. Fisher argued property fraud requires harm to a traditional property interest.

    Mr. Fisher stated the question is whether the product was bargained for in a particular manner.

    Justice Barrett asked about the importance of uniqueness in the transaction.

    Justice Jackson asked where the legal standard for fraud originates.

    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 scope of federal property fraud statutes. the sides that brought the case seek a narrow definition tied to common law. The government seeks a broader definition based on transaction terms.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to limit property fraud to schemes harming traditional property interests.

The government wants the Court to define fraud by whether the victim received what they paid for.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue property fraud statutes require a scheme to defraud as understood at common law.

The government argues the key question is whether the term was material to the transaction.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked for an example of what constitutes fraud in this case.

Justice Sotomayor asked if the key question is whether the victim got what they paid for.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the scope of federal property fraud laws. It determines which deceptive schemes trigger criminal liability. It affects how prosecutors charge financial fraud cases.

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