United States v. Lopez, 2:23-cr-00055

Eduardo Ruben Lopez, a healthcare business owner and executive, was charged by the government with price fixing relating to nurses' wages in Las Vegas and later with five counts of wire fraud.
The wire fraud charges stem from Lopez selling his healthcare business, Community Home Health Care, LLC, to Solace Healthcare Nevada, LLC, without disclosing that the business was under federal investigation for price fixing.
Lopez moved to dismiss the wire fraud charges, arguing his alleged nondisclosure constituted, at most, a civil violation, not criminal fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
The government contended that Lopez’s failure to disclose the investigation deprived Solace of money by inflating the value of the business sold, thereby constituting criminal wire fraud.
The court had to determine whether the alleged misrepresentation deprived Solace of "money or property" and was central to the nature of the bargain, or whether it was merely an intangible interest or collateral misrepresentation.
The matter at issue is a motion to dismiss before trial; the court ultimately recommended denying Lopez's motion to dismiss the wire fraud charges.

Issue	Lopez’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether Lopez's nondisclosure constituted wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343	The misrepresentation did not deprive Solace of money/property and is a civil, not criminal, matter.	Lopez’s misrepresentation deprived Solace of money and went to the core of the parties’ bargain.	Indictment alleges wire fraud; motion to dismiss denied.
Whether Lopez’s misrepresentation went to the nature of the bargain	The misrepresentation was not central to the bargain; Solace got what it bargained for.	The misrepresentation misrepresented the business’s value and potential liability, impacting the bargain directly.	The misrepresentation concerned the nature of the bargain; supports criminal charge.
Whether the concurrent civil litigation or contract remedies negate criminal liability	Civil action remedies the harm; no basis for criminal prosecution.	Civil remedies do not preclude criminal liability for the same conduct.	Civil action does not bar criminal liability.
Whether the government constructively amended the indictment in argument	Government advanced a new theory in response brief (not in indictment).	Argument responded directly to defense; not an amendment.	Court declined to address as first raised in reply.

Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023) (held that deprivation must be of money or property, not intangible interests like the right to make an informed business decision)
United States v. Bruchhausen, 977 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1992) (limited wire fraud to situations involving deprivation of money or property rather than intangible interests)
United States v. Yates, 16 F.4th 256 (9th Cir. 2021) (right to accurate information, by itself, is not property under the wire fraud statute)
United States v. Tarallo, 380 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2004) (misrepresentations about essential aspects (price, quality, risk) can constitute wire fraud if they affect the nature of the bargain)