Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005)
Primary Holding
A scheme to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue constitutes a violation of the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as the statute's plain terms criminalize such conduct without infringing upon the common-law revenue rule.
In the case of Pasquantino v. United States, a group of people was caught smuggling liquor into Canada without paying the required taxes, which is considered a form of cheating the Canadian government. The Supreme Court ruled that this kind of scheme is illegal under U.S. law because it involves using communication methods (like phones) to commit fraud, even if it affects a foreign government. This case is important for consumers because it helps enforce honesty in trade and ensures that everyone pays their fair share of taxes, protecting the integrity of both domestic and international markets. If someone is involved in any kind of scheme to avoid taxes, whether in the U.S. or abroad, this case shows that they could face serious legal consequences.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Pasquantino v. United States, the petitioners, Carl J. Pasquantino, David B. Pasquantino, and Arthur Hilts, were involved in a scheme to smuggle large quantities of liquor from the United States into Canada between 1996 and 2000. They ordered liquor over the phone from discount package stores in Maryland and employed drivers to transport the liquor across the Canadian border without paying the required excise taxes. The drivers concealed the liquor in their vehicles and failed to declare it to Canadian customs officials. At the time, Canada imposed heavy taxes on imported alcoholic beverages, with taxes amounting to approximately double the purchase price of the liquor. The legal proceedings began when the petitioners were indicted and convicted of federal wire fraud for their smuggling operation. Before the trial, they moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it did not constitute a wire fraud offense since the government lacked a sufficient interest in enforcing Canadian revenue laws. The District Court denied their motion, and the case proceeded to trial, resulting in their conviction by a jury. The petitioners subsequently appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, contending that their prosecution violated the common-law revenue rule, which they argued barred the court from recognizing foreign tax laws. Initially, a panel of the Fourth Circuit agreed with the petitioners and reversed their convictions. However, the court later granted rehearing en banc, vacated the panel's decision, and ultimately affirmed the convictions. The en banc court concluded that the common-law revenue rule did not prevent courts from recognizing foreign revenue laws in the context of wire fraud, allowing the prosecution to proceed under the federal wire fraud statute.
Whether a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- November 9, 2004
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Thomas
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (2005)
Consumer LostConviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §1956(h) does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005)
Consumer LostThe phrase "convicted in any court" in the context of the unlawful gun possession statute encompasses only domestic convictions and does not include foreign convictions.
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005)
Consumer LostThe jury instructions in the prosecution of Arthur Andersen LLP for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B) failed to properly convey the elements required for a conviction of "corrupt persuasion," leading to the reversal of the conviction.
Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005)
Consumer LostA defendant's guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and a conviction may be overturned if the prosecution later adopts a theory of the case that is inconsistent with the one presented during the defendant's trial.