United States v. Emanuele Palma, 58 F.4th 246

Palma, an FCA engineer, led calibration work on a new diesel engine; indictment alleges he and supervisors used software (“T_eng,” “Standard Dosing,” “Online Dosing”) to manipulate test behavior (“cycle beating”).
The manipulation allegedly produced favorable emissions and fuel-economy test results that did not reflect real-world performance (tradeoffs between EGR and fuel economy; selective dosing for DEF consumption).
Vehicles were marketed as compliant and “best-in-class”; FCA sold over 100,000 vehicles generating >$4 billion; customers say the misrepresentations were material to purchases.
Palma was indicted on, among other counts, conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349); the district court dismissed that count for insufficient causal nexus to consumer property loss, relying on Kelly.
The government appealed; Sixth Circuit reviews the sufficiency of an indictment de novo and treats the indictment allegations as true at the pleading stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of indictment for conspiracy to commit wire fraud	Gov: Allegations show a scheme to defraud consumers to induce purchases and Palma joined it	Palma: He did not market or communicate with customers; allegations are too remote/conclusory	Reversed: indictment adequately alleges conspiracy and Palma's knowing participation
Causal nexus between Palma's conduct and consumer property loss	Gov: Cycle beating intended to enable sales; resulting billions in revenue show property deprivation	Palma: Scheme primarily deceived regulators, not consumers; Kelly bars property-fraud theory	Kelly distinguished; at pleading stage allegations plausibly tie scheme to consumer loss
Applicability of precedents limiting fraud where deception is remote (e.g., Berroa)	Gov: Berroa is inapposite; here scheme directly aimed at selling cars and produced substantial sales	Palma: Relies on Berroa to show deception was too remote to be property fraud	Court: Berroa not persuasive here; conspiracy allegation survives pleading-stage review

Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (U.S. 2020) (limits property-fraud when scheme primarily alters regulatory choices rather than obtains property)
United States v. Berroa, 856 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 2017) (reversed fraud convictions where deception was remote from money/property)
United States v. Maney, 226 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of legal sufficiency of an indictment)
United States v. Rogers, 769 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2014) (elements of wire fraud and conspiracy explained)
United States v. Landham, 251 F.3d 1072 (6th Cir. 2001) (indictment must allege facts that, if true, establish prima facie offense)
United States v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 1997) (mail/wire fraud requires causal relation between deception and property loss)
United States v. Douglas, 398 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 2005) (government need not allege each defendant performed every role; joining a deceptive scheme suffices)
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1974) (indictment must state facts and circumstances informing the accused of the specific offense)