## Facts

- Regent Office Supply Co., Inc. and Oxford Office Systems, Inc. sold stationery and office supplies through telephone solicitations by sales agents.
- The companies admitted their agents used standardized false statements to obtain access to purchasing personnel, including claims of referrals by company insiders and personal or incidental reasons for offering a “special” deal.
- The misrepresentations did not concern the goods’ quality, quantity, price, or description, and the products were delivered as ordered.
- The record contained no proof that customers were overcharged, received inferior goods, or otherwise suffered economic loss, and the government did not present evidence that customers considered themselves defrauded.
- The parties stipulated that the mails were used in connection with the transactions (e.g., invoices or shipment), satisfying the jurisdictional mailing element in the trial record.
- In an agreed-upon procedure designed to present a legal test case, the corporations consented to indictment and proceeded to a one-day bench trial on stipulated facts.
- The district court convicted both defendants of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and imposed minimal fines.

## Issues

1. Whether deceptive telephone sales pretexts, unconnected to the price, quality, or nature of the goods and unsupported by proof of actual or intended economic harm, constitute a “scheme to defraud” under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
2. Whether the stipulated-record, cooperative pre-indictment procedure produced a justiciable controversy and valid federal jurisdiction.
3. Whether defendants could challenge their stipulation to use of the mails after conviction.
4. Whether applying § 1341 to these practices violated due process or was unconstitutionally vague as applied.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the convictions.
- The court held the admitted conduct showed intent to deceive but did not establish the specific intent to defraud required by § 1341 because the misrepresentations did not go to the nature of the bargain and did not show intended or actual economic injury.
- The court rejected challenges to justiciability and jurisdiction based on the agreed procedural posture and treated the mailing stipulation as adequate on the record.
- The court declined to invalidate § 1341 on vagueness or due process grounds, resolving the case by construing the statute to require a fraud aimed at causing property or economic harm.

## Legal Principles

- Mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 requires proof of a scheme to defraud and specific intent to defraud, not merely an intent to deceive.
- A deception supports mail fraud when it is directed at obtaining money or property by distorting the nature of the bargain (e.g., price, quality, or other essential terms), rather than using false pretexts collateral to the transaction.
- Absence of evidence that victims were deprived of the benefit of their bargain or were intended to be economically harmed weighs against finding fraudulent intent.
- Parties may stipulate to jurisdictional facts such as use of the mails; an unusual but consensual stipulated procedure can still present a concrete controversy for adjudication.

## Conclusion

The convictions were reversed because the government proved deceptive solicitation tactics but not a scheme intended to cheat customers out of money or property through misrepresentations about the transaction’s essential terms, as required for mail fraud under § 1341.


United States v. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d 1174 (2d Cir. 1970)