## Facts

- Two defendants befriended a wealthy widow and represented themselves as successful businessmen to induce her to provide money for supposed investments.
- One defendant married the victim and, using the investment pretense, obtained substantial funds from her.
- The central transaction involved a $35,000 check drawn on the victim’s California bank.
- At the victim’s request, the bank mailed the check from California to Texas; she endorsed it to the defendant, who endorsed it and delivered it to a Texas bank for collection.
- In ordinary banking practice, the Texas bank forwarded the check to the California drawee bank.
- No legitimate investment existed; the defendants took the money and left, and the victim later divorced and testified for the prosecution.
- The defendants were convicted of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), causing interstate transportation of property obtained by fraud (18 U.S.C. § 2314), and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371); the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the privilege for confidential marital communications barred the former wife’s testimony against the defendant.
2. Whether delivering a fraudulently obtained check to a bank for collection, knowing ordinary banking practices would involve mailings, constituted “causing” use of the mails for mail fraud.
3. Whether the same conduct sufficiently proved “causing” interstate transportation of fraudulently obtained property under 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
4. Whether convictions under both 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 2314 for the same scheme constituted impermissible multiple punishment.
5. Whether evidence of one defendant’s participation supported substantive liability as an aider and abettor under 18 U.S.C. § 2(a).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed all convictions.
- The marital communications privilege did not require exclusion of the former wife’s testimony where it largely concerned premarital statements, statements in the presence of third parties, and nonconfidential acts; any arguably confidential remainder was immaterial.
- The evidence supported the mail fraud conviction because the defendant “caused” mail use by acting with knowledge that mailings would follow in the ordinary course of banking business or that such mailings were reasonably foreseeable.
- The evidence supported the § 2314 conviction because placing the fraudulently obtained check into collection channels, knowing it was drawn on an out-of-state bank, foreseeably caused interstate movement.
- Convictions under both § 1341 and § 2314 were permitted because each offense required proof of an element the other did not.
- The evidence supported the codefendant’s convictions as an aider and abettor because he participated throughout and actively assisted the fraudulent scheme.

## Legal Principles

- The confidential marital communications privilege is limited to confidential communications made during marriage and does not bar testimony about premarital statements, statements made in the presence of third persons, or noncommunicative acts.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), personal mailing is unnecessary; a defendant “causes” use of the mails when, by his conduct, mail use follows in the ordinary course of business or is reasonably foreseeable, even if not specifically intended.
- A defendant may “cause” interstate transportation under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 by initiating a transaction that foreseeably moves fraudulently obtained property across state lines through ordinary commercial channels.
- Mail fraud under § 1341 and interstate transportation under § 2314 are separate offenses when each requires proof of a fact the other does not, permitting cumulative convictions arising from the same course of conduct.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 2(a), one who knowingly assists and participates in the scheme may be convicted as a principal for the substantive offenses.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld convictions arising from a fraud carried out through ordinary banking processes, holding that foreseeable mailings and interstate movement satisfy federal causation requirements, that marital privilege did not bar the victim’s testimony on these facts, and that mail fraud and interstate-transportation charges may both stand because they contain distinct elements.


Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (1954)