Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Kenofskey
243 U.S. 440
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1917-04-09
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- stating that principal is criminally liable for mailing by his agent which was reasonably foreseen by principal
- holding that life insurance agent who delivered fraudulent death claim to his superior officer knowing that claim would be mailed by latter in course of business to home office is liable for devising scheme to defraud by use of mails
- stating, in the context of mail fraud, that “ ‘[clause’ is a word of very broad import and its meaning is generally known”
- a principal is criminally liable for a mailing performed by his agent when the mailing was intended or foreseen by the principal
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Kenofskey. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 122 opinions
Headnotes
- Criminal Law & Procedure — Use of the Mails to Defraud — "Cause to be Placed" One who, having devised a scheme to defraud, delivers false documents to an innocent intermediary knowing and expecting that in the ordinary course of business the intermediary will transmit them through the mails to the intended victim, "causes" the matter to be placed in the post office within the meaning of the mail fraud statute, even though the intermediary acts innocently and without knowledge of the fraud. 243 U.S. at 443–444
- Criminal Law & Procedure — Use of the Mails to Defraud — Agency For purposes of the mail fraud statute, an innocent intermediary who, in the due course of business, mails documents at the instigation of the defendant becomes the defendant's agent for that purpose and the means by which the defendant offends against the statute, notwithstanding that the intermediary had no authority from, and acted without the knowledge of, the defrauded party. 243 U.S. at 444
- Criminal Law & Procedure — Use of the Mails to Defraud — Execution of the Scheme A scheme to defraud is not completely executed, so as to fall outside the mail fraud statute, upon the fraudulent actor's delivery of false proofs to a local officer; where payment and receipt of the money remain yet to be accomplished, the mailing of the documents toward that end is a step in the execution of the scheme. 243 U.S. at 444–445
UNITED STATESv. KENOFSKEY,243 U.S. 440(1917)
37 S.Ct. 438
UNITED STATESv. KENOFSKEY.
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
LOUISIANA.
No. 649.
Submitted March 16, 1917.
Decided April 9, 1917.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
No appearance for defendant in error.
The indictment is in the usual volume of such instrumentsPage 441but may be sufficiently summarized as presenting the following facts:
Kenofskey was the agent and assistant superintendent at New Orleans, Louisiana, of the Life Insurance Company of Virginia. It was part of his duty to obtain certificates and proofs of death of persons insured in the company and also to view the remains of deceased policy holders, have them identified, and deliver the certificates and proofs of death to the superintendent of the local office at New Orleans, to be forwarded in the usual course of business through the United States mails to the home office of the company at Richmond, Virginia. In pursuance of a fraudulent scheme Kenofskey falsely represented to the insurance company that he had received and obtained a valid and genuine claim, proof of death and certificates executed, signed and presented by Sarah Thompson, the beneficiary in a policy which had been issued upon the life of one Frederick Wicker. Kenofskey signed the certificates as assistant superintendent. Frederick Wicker is still living, and Kenofskey knew that all claims required the approval of the main office and were to be transmitted from the local office through the United States mails and if handed by him to the superintendent would be so transmitted, and, for that purpose, he delivered the proofs to the superintendent. The superintendent examined them and without knowledge of their fraudulent character affixed his signature thereto, inclosed them in an envelope and deposited them, postage paid, in the United States mails.
A demurrer was filed to the indictment, stating as grounds thereof that it was not sufficient to constitute a violation of § 215 of the Criminal Code of the United States properly construed and understood or of any other law of the United States.
The demurrer was sustained, the court giving as its reasons therefor the following:Page 442
"The depositing of the letter in the mail for the purpose of executing the scheme is the crime. The defendant did not mail the letter, and the local superintendent of the insurance company was not his agent. It is not charged it was the duty of the defendant either to prepare for mailing or to actually mail the papers. He is sought to be held on the theory that as he knew the claim would be mailed to the home office, in the usual course of the business, for approval before payment, he knowingly caused it to be deposited. This theory is too far-fetched to be tenable. Furthermore, in order to constitute a crime, the mailing of the letter must have been a step in the execution of the fraudulent scheme. The scheme devised by defendant was completely executed when he handed the false claim to the local agent at New Orleans.
"However desirable it may be from the viewpoint of the victim to try all perpetrators of fraudulent schemes in the federal courts, this court can not assume jurisdiction except in clear cases.
"The demurrer will be sustained."
This appeal was then prosecuted under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907,34 Stat. 1246.
Section 215 of the Criminal Code is as follows:
"Whoever, having devised . . . any scheme or artifice to defraud . . . shall, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, place, or cause to be placed, any letter, . . . package, writing, . . . in any post-office, . . . to be sent or delivered by the post-office establishment of the United States, . . ." shall be punished, etc.
The short point in the case is whether the facts charged show that Kenofskey offended against the statute. The District Court was of opinion that they did not, for two reasons: (1) The superintendent at New Orleans was not the agent of Kenofskey. (2) Section 215 is directed at steps in the execution of fraudulent schemes and thePage 443scheme devised by Kenofskey was completely executed when he delivered the false claim to the local agent at New Orleans.
We are unable to concur. The words of § 215 are "place, orcause to be placed, [italics ours] any letter, . . . package, writing, . . . in any post-office, . . . to be sent or delivered . . ."
"Cause" is a word of very broad import and its meaning is generally known. It is used in the section in its well-known sense of bringing about, and in such sense it is applicable to the conduct of Kenofskey. He deliberately calculated the effect of giving the false proofs to his superior officer; and the effect followed, demonstrating the efficacy of his selection of means. It certainly cannot be said that the superintendent received authority from the insurance company to transmit to it false proofs. He became Kenofskey's agent for that purpose and the means by which he offended against the provisions of the statute.Demolliv.United States(C.C.A., 8th Circuit), 144 Fed.Rep. 363.
We do not think the scheme ended when Kenofskey handed the false proofs to his superior officer. As said by the Assistant Attorney General, "The most vital element in the transaction both to the insurance company and to Kenofskey remained yet to become an actuality, i.e., the payment and receipt of the money; . . ." Such payment and receipt would indeed have executed the scheme, but they would not have served to "trammel up the consequence" of the fraudulent use of the mails.Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedingsin conformity with this opinion.Page 444