Proof of Scheme and Artifice to Defraud
To sustain a conviction the government must prove the existence of
scheme; it is not required, however, to prove all details or all instances
allegedly illicit conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Stull,
F.2d 439, 442 n. 2 (6th Cir. 1984) ("It is well established that proof of
allegation is not required in order to convict; the government need only
that the scheme to defraud existed."), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1062
United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) ("[T]he
Government need not prove every misrepresentation charged conjunctively in
indictment."); United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 930 (D.C. Cir.
("The Government is not required to prove the details of a scheme; it is,
however, required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the
. . willfully and knowingly devised a scheme or artifice to defraud . . .
(quoting with approval the trial court's instruction on § 1341);
States v. Amrep Corp., 560 F.2d 539, 546 (2d Cir. 1977) ("A scheme to
may consist of numerous elements, no particular one of which need be proved
there is sufficient overall proof that the scheme exists."), cert.
434 U.S. 1015 (1978); Anderson v. United States, 369 F.2d 11, 15 (8th
1966) (all instances of illicit conduct need not be proved to sustain a
conviction), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 976 (1967).|
"All that is required is that [the defendant has] knowingly and
willingly participated in the scheme; she need not have performed every key
herself." United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir.
The "evidence need only show that defendant was a 'knowing and active
participant' in scheme to defraud and that scheme involved interstate wire
communications." Id. (quoting United States v. Wiehoff, 748
1158, 1161 (7th Cir. 1984)).
[cited in USAM 9-43.100]