## Facts

- Edwards owned and controlled a group of companies known collectively as ETS.
- ETS sold payphones to investors and then leased the phones back from those investors.
- The lease agreements promised that, at the end of the lease term (or earlier upon notice), ETS would repurchase the payphone for the same amount the investor had paid.
- ETS used insurance agents and distributors to market and sell the payphones and the lease-back program to investors.
- The payphones did not generate enough revenue to cover ETS’s operating costs and repayment obligations, so ETS depended on funds from new investors to continue operating.
- Edwards did not tell distributors, insurance agents, or current or prospective investors about ETS’s financial problems and growing cash-flow shortfalls.
- As lease cancellations increased, ETS faced increasing repurchase demands, worsening its liquidity problems.
- ETS ultimately filed for bankruptcy; investors lost millions of dollars.
- Despite investor losses, Edwards received millions of dollars through salary, consulting fees, and interest-free loans.
- A federal grand jury indicted Edwards for wire fraud and related offenses; he was convicted after a jury trial.
- On appeal, Edwards argued that a jury instruction defining a “Ponzi scheme” constructively amended the indictment by allowing conviction for wire fraud without requiring a finding that he intended to defraud.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s jury instruction defining a Ponzi scheme constructively amended the wire-fraud indictment by permitting conviction without a finding of intent to defraud.
2. If no constructive amendment occurred, whether the instruction created a material variance from the indictment that required reversal.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Edwards’s convictions.
- The court held that the Ponzi-scheme instruction did not constructively amend the indictment because the jury instructions, read as a whole, still required the jury to find the elements of wire fraud, including intent to defraud.
- The court rejected any claim of reversible variance because the instruction did not authorize conviction on a different offense than the one charged and did not prejudice Edwards’s substantial rights.

## Legal Principles

- A constructive amendment occurs when trial proceedings (including jury instructions) alter the essential elements of the charged offense so that the jury may convict on a basis not charged by the grand jury; this violates the Fifth Amendment and is reversible error.
- A variance occurs when the proof at trial differs from factual details alleged in the indictment while the elements of the charged offense remain the same; reversal requires a showing of material prejudice, such as lack of notice or double-jeopardy risk.
- Wire fraud requires proof of a scheme to defraud and proof that the defendant acted with intent to defraud; an instruction describing a type of fraudulent operation (such as a Ponzi scheme) does not dispense with the government’s burden to prove intent when the full charge requires that finding.
- Jury instructions are evaluated in their entirety, not in isolation, to determine whether they correctly required the jury to find every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Edwards’s wire-fraud convictions arising from ETS’s payphone sale-and-leaseback program, concluding that the district court’s Ponzi-scheme instruction did not change the charged offense or remove the intent-to-defraud requirement, and that the instructions and trial record did not support a finding of either a constructive amendment or a prejudicial variance.


United States v. Edwards, 526 F.3d 747 (2008)