United States v. Thomas Tanke, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3968

Tanke worked as Azteca’s VP of operations with authority to issue checks; he embezzled over 192,000 from Azteca and CERS over ~20 months.
He issued 21 Azteca checks totaling $74,762.82 to his creditors and businesses he patronized, never authorized to use Azteca funds for those payments.
Tanke falsified records with fake invoices and check register copies to conceal the diversions; examples include a false “Onyx” invoice and forged check copies.
From February to July 2004, he diverted seven checks totaling $117,486.25 to Cedar Creek, with altered endorsements to route funds to himself.
After leaving Azteca in July 2004, he attempted to justify diversions as Cedar Creek consulting fees and warned Martin to avoid reporting misconduct.
On September 16, 2004, Cedar Creek mailed a letter to Martin demanding payment for invoices, enclosing a Cedar Creek invoice; Martin later denied any Cedar Creek services.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the September 16, 2004 letter supported mail fraud.	Tanke contends letter was post-completion and not in furtherance of the fraud.	Tanke argues the scheme was completed by July 2004, so mailing cannot be 'for the purpose of executing' the scheme.	Yes; reasonable jury could find letter targeted to further the scheme.
Bankruptcy misrepresentation enhancement validity.	Enhancement should apply if misrepresentation occurred during bankruptcy proceedings.	Misrepresentation occurred after the offense and should not trigger enhancement.	Supported; enhancement applied because conduct occurred to avoid responsibility during bankruptcy.
Sophisticated means enhancement applicability.	Conduct used sophisticated concealment justifying enhancement.	No use of fictitious entities/offshore accounts; enhancement unwarranted.	Affirmed; the overall concealment scheme warranted the enhancement.

United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (1986) (mailings prior to scheme completion required for liability)
United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75 (1962) (defendants may be liable for concealment mailings that occur before completion)
United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2009) (post-completion transfers not part of scheme unless within original scope)
Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) (distinction between concealment after central objective and initial conspiracy)
Sun Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Dierdorff, 825 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1987) (concealment letters designed to prevent suspicion may constitute mail fraud)