Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Pasquantino v. United States

Docket No.: 03-725
Certiorari Granted: Apr 5 2004
Argued: November 9, 2004
Decided: April 26, 2005

Topics:

18 U.S.C. 1343, Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, RICO, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Sentencing Guidelines, Sixth Amendment, United States Sentencing Guidelines, murder, privacy, probable cause, property rights, separation of powers

PartyNames: David B. Pasquantino, Carl J. Pasquantino, and Arthur Hilts v. United States
Petitioner: David B. Pasquantino, Carl J. Pasquantino, and Arthur Hilts
Respondent: United States

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Citation: 336 F3d 321
Supreme Court Docket

David B. Pasquantino, Carl J. Pasquantino, and Arthur Hilts
v.
United States
544 U.S. 349 (2005)
Question Presented:

Whether the federal wire fraud statute (18 U.S.C. ยง 1343) authorizes criminal prosecution of an alleged fraudulent scheme to avoid payment of taxes potentially owed to a foreign sovereign, given the lack of any clear statement by Congress to override the common law revenue rule, the interests of both the Legislative and Executive Branches in guiding foreign affairs, and this Court's prior rulings concerning the limited scope of the term "property" as used in the wire fraud statute.

Question:

Did a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violate the federal wire fraud statute?

Pasquantino v. United States
ORAL ARGUMENT

November 9, 2004

Holding: affirmed
Decision: Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Vote: 7-2
Opinion By: Justice Clarence Thomas

Pasquantino v. United States
Case Documents

1Opinion in Pasquantino v. United States
2Slip Opinion in Pasquantino v. United States (Opinion by )
3Opinion in Pasquantino v. United States
Additional documents for this case are pending review.