## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged a corporation and several officers, directors, and employees with operating a nationwide scheme targeting small business owners seeking loans or buyers for their businesses.
- The defendants allegedly used trained salesmen to obtain advance fees by false promises that the company would secure loans or arrange business sales, and that fees would be refundable in certain circumstances.
- After obtaining victims’ applications and advance payments, the defendants allegedly mailed written “acceptances” of the applications to victims.
- The indictment alleged the acceptance letters were intended to lull victims into believing services would be performed, thereby discouraging complaints and delaying detection.
- A federal grand jury returned 34 substantive counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and one conspiracy count under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
- The district court dismissed the substantive counts, reasoning the mailings occurred after the defendants received the victims’ money, and dismissed the conspiracy count without additional explanation.
- The Government directly appealed the dismissals.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment sufficiently alleges use of the mails “for the purpose of executing” a scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 when the charged mailings occur after victims have paid, but are alleged to lull victims and delay detection.
2. Whether the conspiracy count under 18 U.S.C. § 371 was properly dismissed where it facially charged an agreement to use the mails in furtherance of the alleged fraud.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and reinstated the indictment.
- The Court held the substantive counts were not dismissible on the ground that the mailings occurred after payment; the alleged acceptance letters could be found by a jury to be part of executing the fraudulent scheme.
- The Court distinguished prior decisions where post-transaction mailings were routine and not part of the fraudulent device.
- The Court held the conspiracy count, on its face, properly charged a separate offense as to each defendant and therefore should not have been dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a mailing may be “for the purpose of executing” a fraudulent scheme if it is a deliberate, planned part of carrying out, maintaining, or protecting the scheme, even if sent after the victim’s initial payment.
- “Lulling” communications—mailings intended to reassure victims, deter complaints, or postpone discovery—can satisfy the mailing element when integrated into a previously formulated fraudulent plan.
- On a motion to dismiss an indictment, the question is whether the allegations, taken as true, are sufficient to allow a properly instructed jury to find the statutory elements; timing alone does not defeat § 1341 if the mailing’s alleged function furthers execution of the scheme.
- A conspiracy count under 18 U.S.C. § 371 is legally sufficient at the pleading stage when it facially alleges an agreement to commit the charged offense and thus states a separate crime.

## Conclusion

The Court held that planned mailings designed to lull victims and delay detection may constitute use of the mails “for the purpose of executing” a fraud under § 1341 despite occurring after victims pay, and it reinstated both the substantive mail-fraud counts and the related conspiracy charge.


United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75 (1962)