Available To Serve You Nationwide On All Federal Cases
This page was written, edited, reviewed & approved by Karren Kenney following our comprehensive editorial guidelines Karren Kenney, the Founding Partner, has 30+ years of legal experience as a criminal defense attorney.
Federal mail fraud and conspiracy charges are among the most common tools used by prosecutors in white-collar criminal cases. They are also among the most misunderstood.
The government often frames fraud cases in simple terms: someone lied, someone paid money, therefore fraud occurred. That framing is persuasive to jurors — but it is not always legally correct.
In a published opinion filed April 9, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated multiple defendants’ federal convictions for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud arising out of printer toner sales tactics. Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Karren Kenney was the trial lawyer and appeals lawyer who represented her innocent ciient Leah.
The decision is important not only because it resulted in vacated convictions, but because it clarifies a core limitation on federal fraud prosecutions:
Not every lie that induces a purchase constitutes federal fraud.
For defendants and their families, this case provides an essential reminder: it is not impossible to beat federal conspiracy and fraud charges — even after a jury conviction — if the government’s legal theory is flawed.
The defendants in the case owned or managed sales companies that telemarketed printer toner. The prosecution alleged that sales representatives used deceptive tactics to secure sales, including:
At trial, the government described the case as a long-running telemarketing fraud and presented cooperating co-defendants and customer witnesses to describe the sales tactics. But the factual record contained a critical point that would later become central to the appellate decision:
This is not a typical “no product delivered” fraud case. It was a case built on deception in the sales process — rather than deception about what was ultimately delivered.
At trial, the government urged a theory of mail fraud that the Ninth Circuit later found legally invalid.
In closing argument, the government summarized mail fraud in plain language, telling jurors:
when you lie to somebody on an important fact that causes them to give you money, you have defrauded them.
The government also argued the jury only needed to find one of two misrepresentations — either the “regular supplier” pitch or the “price increase” pitch — and that either one was enough to cause someone to “wrongfully part with money.”
That is a broad theory. Under it, any lie that influences a purchase could become a federal felony.
The Ninth Circuit held that this theory went too far.
The Ninth Circuit’s core holding was straightforward and extremely significant:
Federal fraud requires more than deception, and the lie must go to the nature of the bargain.
The court explained that federal mail fraud prohibits only deceptive schemes to deprive a victim of money or property — not schemes to deprive a victim of “accurate information” alone. The court emphasized that deception alone cannot be enough, because deception inherently involves depriving a victim of accurate information. If deception alone were sufficient, then virtually all dishonesty would become federal fraud. Instead, the Ninth Circuit adopted the rule recognized by multiple circuits: the misrepresentation must relate to an essential part of the transaction, such as:
In practical terms, the Ninth Circuit endorsed a “benefit of the bargain” framework:
The Ninth Circuit’s decision was not simply a disagreement with the prosecution’s closing argument. The problem ran deeper: the jury instructions allowed the jury to convict on the government’s overbroad theory. The defendants proposed a supplemental instruction requiring the jury to find that the misrepresentation affected the nature of the bargain — not merely that it caused a transaction to occur.
The government objected, arguing that any “material” misrepresentation inducing someone to part with money was enough for mail fraud. The district court declined to give the defense instruction and instead instructed the jury that a statement was material if it had a tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, someone to part with money or property.
The Ninth Circuit held this did not solve the problem. It allowed jurors to convict without finding that the defendants deceived customers about the nature of the bargain. That means the jury may have returned a general verdict resting on a legally invalid theory — a constitutional error.
The Ninth Circuit held that the government’s trial theory was legally overbroad because it did not require the jury to find that the defendants deceived customers about the nature of the bargain. The court explained that the “nature of the bargain” requirement properly excludes cases where a misrepresentation leads to a transaction, but the buyer still receives the expected product at the expected price. The court also rejected the idea that it could affirm the convictions on a different theory — such as inflated prices — because the jury instructions and closing argument did not require that finding.
This is a key takeaway for anyone facing federal conspiracy charges. The defendants were convicted not only of substantive mail fraud but also conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The Ninth Circuit held that because the conspiracy convictions rested on the same legally invalid theory of fraud, the conspiracy convictions suffered from the same error. This is a crucial legal principle:
If the government’s underlying fraud theory is invalid, the conspiracy conviction collapses with it.
That matters because prosecutors often rely on conspiracy charges as a “net” to capture broad conduct, even where the evidence of individual acts is disputed.
This decision is not limited to toner sales cases. Its importance is structural. It reinforces the limits of federal fraud prosecutions at a time when courts — including the Supreme Court — have repeatedly narrowed fraud theories that rely on intangible harm rather than deprivation of money or property. More importantly, it highlights something many defendants do not learn until it is too late:
Appeals are not “technicalities.”
They are constitutional safeguards. Trial courts and juries determine facts. But appellate courts determine whether the correct law was applied. And when the wrong legal standard is given to a jury — especially in a fraud case — the conviction may be vulnerable.
One of the most damaging myths in federal criminal defense is the idea that:
That myth is false.
The Ninth Circuit’s published opinion is proof that federal fraud and conspiracy convictions can be vacated when the government advances an overbroad theory and the jury is not properly instructed. And for defendants and families reading this: that matters, because hopelessness is one of the government’s most effective weapons.
A guilty verdict is devastating. But it does not always mean the case was tried correctly, or that the conviction will survive appellate review.
Federal fraud prosecutions often attempt to collapse the law into a simple story: “They lied and got paid.” But the Ninth Circuit has made clear that federal fraud requires more. The misrepresentation must go to the nature of the bargain — and juries must be instructed accordingly. If you or someone you love is facing federal fraud or conspiracy charges, the most important thing you can do is refuse to give up prematurely. Because sometimes, the most important part of the case happens after trial.
Can you beat federal conspiracy charges?
Yes. Federal conspiracy charges require proof of an agreement to commit an underlying crime. If the underlying legal theory is invalid — or the government fails to prove the required elements — conspiracy charges can be defeated at trial or reversed on appeal.
Can a federal fraud conviction be overturned on appeal?
Yes. Convictions can be vacated when the jury was instructed on a legally invalid theory, when the prosecution’s theory was overbroad, or when constitutional errors occurred.
What does “nature of the bargain” mean in mail fraud cases?
It refers to whether the lie was about an essential part of the transaction — such as price, quality, or another fundamental aspect of what the buyer was actually purchasing.
