Ciminelli v. United States

by Supreme Court of the United States

Note: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

CIMINELLI v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 21–1170. Argued November 28, 2022—Decided May 11, 2023

Petitioner Louis Ciminelli was convicted of federal wire fraud for his involvement in a scheme to rig the bid process for obtaining state-funded development projects associated with then-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Buffalo Billion initiative. The Buffalo Billion initiative was administered by the nonprofit Fort Schuyler Management Corporation. Investigations uncovered that Fort Schuyler board member Alain Kaloyeros paid lobbyist Todd Howe $25,000 in state funds each month to ensure that the Cuomo administration gave Kaloyeros a prominent role in administering projects for Buffalo Billion. Ciminelli’s construction company, LPCiminelli, paid Howe $100,000 to $180,000 each year to help it obtain state-funded jobs. In 2013, Howe and Kaloyeros devised a scheme whereby Kaloyeros would tailor Fort Schuyler’s bid process to smooth the way for LPCiminelli to receive major Buffalo Billion contracts by designating LPCiminelli as a “preferred developer” with priority status to negotiate for specific projects. Kaloyeros, Howe, and Ciminelli jointly developed a set of requests for proposal (RFPs) that effectively guaranteed LPCiminelli’s selection as a preferred developer by treating unique aspects of LPCiminelli as qualifications for preferred-developer status. With that status in hand, LPCiminelli secured the marquee $750 million “Riverbend project” in Buffalo. After the scheme was uncovered, Ciminelli, Kaloyeros, Howe, and others were indicted for, as relevant here, wire fraud in violation of 18 U. S. C. §1343 and conspiracy to commit the same under §1349.

In the operative indictment and at trial, the Government relied solely on the Second Circuit’s right-to-control theory of wire fraud, under which the Government can establish wire fraud by showing that the defendant schemed to deprive a victim of potentially valuable economic information necessary to make discretionary economic decisions. Consistent with that theory, the District Court instructed the jury that the term “property” in §1343 “includes intangible interests such as the right to control the use of one’s assets,” which could be harmed by depriving Fort Schuyler of “potentially valuable economic information.” The jury convicted Ciminelli of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. On appeal, Ciminelli argued that the right to control one’s assets is not “property” for purposes of §1343. The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions on the basis of its longstanding right-to-control precedents.

Held: Because the right to valuable economic information needed to make discretionary economic decisions is not a traditional property interest, the Second Circuit’s right-to-control theory cannot form the basis for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes. Pp. 4–10.

(a) The federal wire fraud statute criminalizes the use of interstate wires for “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” 18 U. S. C. §1343. When the federal wire fraud statute was enacted, the “common understanding” of the words “to defraud” referred “to wronging one in his property rights.” Cleveland v. United States, 531 U. S. 12, 19. This Court has therefore consistently understood the statute’s “money or property” requirement as limiting the “scheme or artifice to defraud” element. Ibid. Even so, lower federal courts for decades interpreted the mail and wire fraud statutes to protect intangible interests unconnected to traditional property rights. See Skilling v. United States, 561 U. S. 358, 400. This Court halted that trend in McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, which confined the statutes to the “protect[ion of] individual property rights.” Id., at 359, n. 8.

The right-to-control theory cannot be squared with the text of the federal fraud statutes, which are “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” Id., at 360. The so-called right to control is not an interest that had “long been recognized as property” when the wire fraud statute was enacted. Carpenter v. United States, 484 U. S. 19, 26. From the theory’s inception, the Second Circuit has not grounded the right to control in traditional property notions. The theory is also inconsistent with the structure and history of the federal fraud statutes. Congress responded to this Court’s decision in McNally by enacting §1346, which revived only the intangible right of honest services, one of many intangible rights protected by courts under the fraud statutes pre-McNally. Congress’ silence regarding other such intangible interests forecloses the judicial expansion of the wire fraud statute to cover the intangible right to control. Finally, by treating mere information as the protected interest, the right-to-control theory vastly expands federal jurisdiction to an almost limitless variety of deceptive actions traditionally left to State law. Pp. 4–9.

(b) Despite relying exclusively on the right-to-control theory before the grand jury, District Court, and Second Circuit, the Government now concedes that the theory as articulated below is erroneous. Yet, the Government insists that the Court can affirm Ciminelli’s convictions by applying facts presented to the jury below to the elements of a different wire fraud theory. The Court declines the Government’s request, which would require the Court to assume not only the function of a court of first view, but also of a jury. See McCormick v. United States, 500 U. S. 257, 270–271, n. 8. Pp. 9–10.

13 F. 4th 158, reversed and remanded.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion.

The current edition of this document derives from the electronic version of the "slip opinion" posted online by the Supreme Court of the United States the day the decision was handed down. It is not the final or most authoritative version. It is subject to further revision by the Court and should be replaced with the final edition when it is published in a print volume of the United States Reports. The Court's full disclaimer regarding slip opinions follows:

The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion. Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls. (source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx)