Date: 07-03-2024

Case Style:

United States of America v. Adam Davis

Case Number: 2:23-cr-00526

Judge: Wendy Bettlestone

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343:

The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.) (the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) (essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme.").

Outcome: 07/03/2024 49 Minute Entry for proceedings held before DISTRICT JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE in Courtroom 10A: Sentencing held on 7/3/2024 for ADAM DAVIS (1), Count(s) 1, IMPRISONMENT: 33 MONTHS; SUPERVISED RELEASE: 3 YEARS; RESTITUTION: $2,147,727.00; SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: $100. Court Reporter: C. MCCOLLUM.(tomg) (Entered: 07/03/2024)
07/03/2024 50 IT IS ORDERED THAT THE EXECUTION OF PRISON SENTENCE FOR ADAM DAVIS IS SUSPENDED UNTIL 8/19/2024, AT WHICH TIME DEFENDANT IS DIRECTED TO REPORT TO THE DESIGNATED INSTITUTION NO LATER THAN 2:00 P.M. TO COMMENCE SAID SENTENCE. Signed by DISTRICT JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE on 7/3/2024.7/3/2024 Entered and Copies E-Mailed. (tomg) (Entered: 07/03/2024)
07/03/2024 51 JUDGMENT AS TO ADAM DAVIS (1), Count(s) 1, IMPRISONMENT: 33 MONTHS; SUPERVISED RELEASE: 3 YEARS; RESTITUTION: $2,147,727.00; SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: $100. Signed by DISTRICT JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE on 7/3/2024.7/3/2024 Entered and Copies E-Mailed. (tomg) (Entered: 07/03/2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: