United States v. Glenn Jasen
693 F. App'x 801
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Glenn and Kathryn Jasen were convicted of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 for selling property while concealing a known sinkhole and representing on disclosure and transaction documents that no sinkhole existed.
- The Jasens had previously received substantial insurance proceeds for the sinkhole prior to sale.
- The buyer testified he would not have purchased the property had he known of the sinkhole.
- A wire transfer was used to receive sale proceeds; prosecution asserted the transfer was part of executing the fraudulent scheme.
- The Jasens moved to dismiss and later sought judgment of acquittal, arguing vagueness/fair warning, rule of lenity, due process/novel construction, federalism (Commerce Clause), and insufficient evidence. The district court denied relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1343 is unconstitutionally vague as applied (fair warning) | Jasens: statute doesn’t clearly cover real‑estate concealment; vagueness and causation unclear | Government/Court: § 1343’s word “any” and established doctrine cover schemes involving real estate; scienter and precedent give notice | Affirmed: statute provides fair warning; not vague as applied |
| Whether rule of lenity requires exoneration | Jasens: ambiguity means lenity should apply | Government/Court: statute is clear; lenity applies only where grievous ambiguity remains | Affirmed: lenity not triggered |
| Whether application violates federalism (Commerce Clause) | Jasens: conduct local; federal reach improper | Government/Court: use of interstate telecommunications suffices under Commerce Clause to regulate conduct that uses channels of interstate commerce | Affirmed: federal jurisdiction valid |
| Sufficiency of evidence for wire fraud conviction | Jasens: evidence insufficient to prove scheme, intent, or that wires were used to execute scheme | Government/Court: Jasens knowingly made material misrepresentations; buyer relied; wire transfer was incident to essential element (receipt of proceeds) and foreseeable | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to sustain convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Svete, 556 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir.) (statutory word “any” read expansively)
- United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498 (11th Cir.) (vagueness doctrine does not require defining every factual situation)
- United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir.) (elements of wire/mail fraud; material misrepresentation and causation analysis)
- Kenofskey v. United States, 243 U.S. 440 (Sup. Ct.) (discussion of the broad meaning of “cause” in fraud context)
- McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (Sup. Ct.) (scienter requirement limits arbitrary enforcement)
- Shaw v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 462 (Sup. Ct.) (rule of lenity applies only when grievous statutory ambiguity remains)
- Robers v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1854 (Sup. Ct.) (wire fraud convictions involving fraudulent mortgage applications in real‑estate transactions)
- United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581 (11th Cir.) (wire fraud in sham real‑estate sale and mortgage fraud context)
- United States v. Brester, 786 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir.) (wire fraud convictions involving misrepresentations in apartment sales and mortgage applications)
- United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir.) (Commerce Clause supports federal regulation where interstate channels are used)
- United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.) (wires need not be essential; foreseeable use suffices)
- United States v. Adkinson, 158 F.3d 1147 (11th Cir.) (receipt of proceeds as fruits of fraud supports causation/usage of mail/wires)
- Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (Sup. Ct.) (wires/mail incident to essential part of scheme can satisfy statutory requirement)
- United States v. Ruggiero, 791 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.) (de novo review and strong presumption of statute validity)
- United States v. Taylor, 818 F.3d 671 (11th Cir.) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Green, 842 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on judgment of acquittal)