## Facts

- Barney Dewey Ratcliff, Jr. was the incumbent Livingston Parish president and a candidate for reelection in 1999.
- Louisiana campaign-finance law limited individual contributions, loans, and loan guarantees to $2,500 and required candidates to file disclosure reports with the Louisiana Board of Ethics.
- During the campaign, Ratcliff obtained two $50,000 bank loans supported by a local businessman’s cosignature and collateral.
- Ratcliff disclosed at least the first loan and guaranty in a campaign-finance report; after being warned by Board staff that the guaranty might violate state law, he asserted he would restructure the loans.
- The indictment alleged Ratcliff later arranged additional financing and made misrepresentations or omissions to the Board of Ethics during its inquiries, in violation of state campaign-finance rules.
- Ratcliff won reelection and received the parish-president salary and employment benefits associated with the office.
- A federal grand jury charged Ratcliff with fourteen counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, alleging he used the mails in furtherance of a scheme to secure reelection (and thus the office’s salary and benefits) through election-related misconduct.
- The district court dismissed the indictment for failure to allege a scheme to deprive any victim of “money or property”; the government appealed and Ratcliff cross-appealed on alternative grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment alleging a scheme to obtain an elected office, and thereby its salary and benefits, through election-law and campaign-finance violations states a “scheme to defraud” of “money or property” under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all mail-fraud counts.
- The court held the indictment did not allege a scheme to defraud any victim of “money or property” within the meaning of § 1341.
- Because the indictment failed to state a § 1341 offense, the court did not need to resolve Ratcliff’s cross-appeal theories.

## Legal Principles

- Federal mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 requires a scheme whose object is to obtain money or property, not merely to secure an intangible interest such as a fair electoral process.
- A governmental entity’s payment of the fixed salary and benefits attached to an elective office, following an election result, is not treated as a proprietary “money or property” interest for § 1341 based solely on allegations that the election was tainted.
- Election-law or campaign-finance violations do not become mail fraud merely because an elected position carries publicly funded compensation; the government must plead a property interest that was the object of the deception.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded that using election-related misconduct to obtain an elected office, and thus its salary and benefits, does not constitute a scheme to defraud the government of “money or property” under § 1341, so the mail-fraud indictment failed to state an offense.


United States v. Ratcliff, 488 F.3d 639 (5th Cir. 2007)