## Facts

- David Weimert was a vice president of AnchorBank and president of its subsidiary, Investment Directions, Inc. (IDI).
- During the 2008–2009 financial crisis, AnchorBank directed Weimert to sell the bank’s interest in a Texas commercial real estate development held through IDI.
- Weimert arranged a sale that exceeded the bank’s target price and relieved the bank of significant liability tied to the property.
- Two buyer groups were involved, and the bank ultimately agreed to a structure in which Weimert would acquire a minority interest in the property.
- The bank also agreed to pay Weimert an unusual bonus intended to fund his purchase of that minority stake.
- For purposes of appeal, the court assumed Weimert deliberately misled bank decisionmakers to believe the buyer would not close unless Weimert received a minority interest, even though the buyer would have proceeded without him.
- The misstatements concerned the parties’ bargaining positions and conditions for closing, while the economic terms of the transaction were disclosed and negotiable.
- After the bank discovered what it viewed as deceptive self-dealing, it terminated Weimert, and the government charged him with wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

## Issues

1. Whether misrepresentations or omissions about parties’ negotiating positions in a commercial deal, when the transaction’s actual terms are disclosed and negotiable, can constitute wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
2. Whether such conduct shows a “scheme to defraud” to obtain “money or property” by materially false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed Weimert’s convictions in an opinion by Judge Hamilton.
- The court held the proven (and assumed) conduct did not satisfy the federal wire-fraud statute because the deception concerned bargaining leverage rather than material facts or enforceable promises.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal.

## Legal Principles

- Wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 requires proof of a scheme to obtain money or property by materially false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.
- Misstatements about negotiating positions (e.g., whether a party will walk away without a condition) generally are not treated as misrepresentations of material fact for wire-fraud purposes when the deal’s objective terms are disclosed and subject to negotiation.
- The statute does not extend to ordinary bargaining behavior absent deception about objective facts, binding commitments, or other traditional indicia of criminal fraud; potential civil or fiduciary breaches do not automatically establish federal wire fraud.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit limited wire-fraud liability in commercial negotiations, holding that deception about negotiating leverage—without deception about objective transaction terms or enforceable promises—does not constitute a scheme to obtain money or property under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and it ordered acquittal.


United States v. Weimert, 819 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2016)