United States v. Ethan Jinian, 712 F.3d 1255

Jinian, Bricsnet's CEO, exercised control from San Francisco and approved expenditures that he falsely represented as authorized.
Brown issued nearly 100 Bricsnet checks to Jinian; Jinian deposited them into his Mechanics Bank account in California.
Between 2006 and 2008, Jinian deposited checks totaling over $1.5 million obtained through misrepresentation.
Banking/clearing involved interbank wire transmissions: Mechanics Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, then to Silicon Valley Bank.
Evidence showed interstate wire communications were used to process and clear the checks, enabling the fraud to continue.
Jinian was convicted on 13 of 14 counts of wire fraud; district court denied post-trial motions; sentenced to 64 months plus restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether interstate wires were part of the execution of the scheme	Jinian relies on Kann that such wires were incidental.	Wires were mere post-fraud processing; not part of execution.	Wires were part of execution; sustained conviction
Whether jury instruction required foreseeability of interstate wires	Jurisdictional element requires foreseeability.	No foreseeability requirement; interstate nexus for jurisdiction only.	Interstate nexus is jurisdictional; no foreseeability proof required
Whether there was sufficient evidence that interstate wiring was reasonably foreseeable	Evidence showed foreseeability and actual interstate wires.	No need to prove foreseeability for jurisdictional element.	Sufficient evidence; no error in jury instruction
Whether applying § 1343 to Jinian violates the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Tenth Amendment		Statute exceeds constitutional authority	Statute is valid under Commerce Clause; no constitutional violation

Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88 (1944) (court distinguished post-fraud banking steps from the scheme itself)
Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989) (upheld that mailings can be essential steps in an ongoing scheme)
Lo v. United States, 231 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2000) (wires can be incident to execution of a scheme)
Pelisamen, 641 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of wire fraud; specific intent required)
Blassingame, 427 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1970) (jurisdictional interstate nexus not a substantive element)
Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232 (7th Cir. 1996) (interstate nexus may be jurisdictional; not require foreseeability)
Fowler v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2045 (2011) (foreseeability standard in witness tampering; distinguished from §1343)
Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (1954) (causes an interstate wire if foreseeability or knowledge of use)
United States v. Schmuck, 489 U.S. 705 (1989) (ongoing scheme; essential steps can include interstate wires)