United States v. Mullins

Ananya DixitCase Summary

Essential requirements for conviction in a wire and mail fraud case

United States v. Mullins
992 F.2d 1472
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number 91-50107 to 91-50109
Before Circuit Judge Farris, Circuit Judge Leavy, and Circuit Judge Trott
Decided on June 21, 1993

Relevancy of the Case: Essential requirements for conviction in a wire and mail fraud case

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Federal Wiretapping Act, 18 USC § 2511
  • Wire Fraud Statue, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The defendants ran North Ranch, a tourism company in Los Angeles. American Airlines leased SABRE computer terminals to North Ranch for computerised travel reservations. Travel agents could acquire flight data, directly enter bookings, or modify existing reservations using Passenger Name Records (PNR).
  • In May or June 1987, someone modified PNRs on a SABRE terminal at North Ranch. This delayed an American Airlines flight from Chicago to Munish as the passenger names and luggage list did not match.
  • An American Airlines senior security representative discovered PNR modifications on other flights originating from North Ranch.
  • An inquiry found the involvement of three fake accounts: Smith, Jones, and Johnson. The postal addresses were mail drops the defendants had created and managed.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

  • The Assistant US Attorney argued that the defendant’s conduct caused fraudulent deprivation of valuable things, and American Airlines had to bear unnecessary liability.
  • The defendants’ counsel submitted that their activities did not deprive American Airlines of property. This is a necessary requirement for both mail and wire fraud. Hence, they are not in violation of either of those crimes.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The District Court calculated the sentence of an offence slightly beyond the upper range of the defendants’ correct criminal history category and offence level.

Final Decision

  • The court upheld the conviction in all three cases but vacated and remanded the defendant’s sentence in Case Number 91-50109.