United States v. Grace, 843 F. Supp. 2d 651

Grace moved to dismiss Counts 9–11 (mail and wire fraud) arguing the indictment fails to factually support bribery/kickback elements.
Grace challenged the need for pecuniary harm under Skilling v. United States to sustain honest-services fraud.
Government contends Paragraph 60 and the Cifer 5000 scheme allege bribery and that honest-services fraud does not require pecuniary harm.
Rule 7(c)(1) requires a plain, concise indictment stating essential facts; the court must view allegations as true.
Superseding Indictment paragraphs 61–63, and Paragraph 62 explicitly incorporate Cifer 5000 scheme allegations; Counts 9–11 allege bribery and honest-services fraud.
Court holds Counts 9–11 adequately allege bribery, and pecuniary harm is not required under honest-services fraud under §1346.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Counts 9–11 adequately state bribery/honest-services fraud?	Grace asserts indictment lacks bribery facts.	Grace argues Skilling requires pecuniary loss.	Yes; counts allege quid pro quo bribery and honest services.
Is pecuniary harm required for honest-services fraud under Skilling?	Grace relies on Skilling to require economic loss.	Government says pecuniary harm not required.	Pecuniary harm not required under honest-services fraud.
Does the indictment meet Rule 7(c)(1) sufficiency standards?	Indictment possibly framed inadequately.	Indictment provides necessary elements and notice.	Indictment meets minimal constitutional standards.

United States v. Harms, 442 F.3d 367 (5th Cir.2006) (indictment sufficiency and minimal standards)
United States v. Crow, 164 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.1999) (indictment validity and factual allegations treated as true)
Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (honest-services fraud limited to bribery and kickbacks; pecuniary harm not required)
Shushan v. United States, 117 F.2d 110 (5th Cir.1941) (origin of the honest-services doctrine)