Arthur Fayne v. United States

KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION (Kousisis). Whether the Sixth Circuit’s affirmance of wire-fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 conflicts with this Court’s requirement that the government prove a knowing and intentional misrepresentation at the time property is obtained, where the alleged “fraud” rested on the timing and sequencing of payments later directed by the architect and owner under a financing structure that vested the developer with discretion over drawdowns and disbursements; and where the record shows the project was completed, the contractors were paid, and Petitioner’s net contributions exceeded withdrawals. See United States v. Kousisis, 145 S.Ct.1382 (2025); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1,20-25 (1999)-

REVIVAL OF RIGHT-TO-CONTROL (Ciminelli). Whether the Sixth Circuit effectively revived the discredited “right-to-control” theory by upholding convictions based on alleged breaches of “trust,” “expectations,” and “fiduciary duty,” rather than a false statement obtaining money or property, in direct conflict with Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306,312-15 (2023), and McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350,356-60 (1987).

MVRA RESTITUTION WITHOUT LOSS (Lagos). Whether the court of appeals expanded the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, contrary to Lagos v. United States, 584 U.S. 577 (2018), by affirming restitution exceeding $840,000 to public entities and a vendor that suffered no direct,