Bronx New York Jury Instruction - Wire Fraud - Depriving Another Of Intangible Right Of Honest Services

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions - Offenses Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• County: Bronx
• Control #: US-11CRO-42-2
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. In the Bronx, New York, jury instruction for the crime of wire fraud involving the deprivation of another's intangible right of honest services is explained in detail. Wire fraud refers to a fraudulent scheme conducted through wire communications, such as phone calls, emails, or electronic transfers. The specific type of wire fraud described in this jury instruction pertains to depriving another person of their intangible right to honest services. The concept of "intangible right of honest services" refers to the duty of an individual to act in a trustworthy manner and provide honest and faithful services in a professional capacity. This could apply to various settings, such as an employee defrauding their employer, a public official accepting bribes, or a professional athlete participating in match-fixing activities. When instructing the jury on this type of wire fraud, the following aspects may be addressed: 1. Definition of wire fraud: The jury will be informed about the general elements of wire fraud, emphasizing that it involves fraudulent intent, use of wire communications, and causing harm to the victim. 2. Intangible right of honest services: The instruction will delve into the nature of the intangible right, explaining that it pertains to the duty to provide honest and faithful services. Examples may be provided to illustrate how this right can be deprived, such as accepting kickbacks, engaging in bribery, or manipulating business transactions for personal gain. 3. Communication through wire: The instruction will elucidate that wire communications, such as emails, phone calls, or electronic transfers, were employed to facilitate the fraudulent scheme. It may be highlighted that even a single wire communication in furtherance of the fraud can establish this element. 4. Deprivation of honest services: The jury will be guided on the specific acts committed by the defendant that resulted in the deprivation of the victim's honest services. These acts should demonstrate a clear intent to defraud and harm the victim's right to honest services. 5. Elements of wire fraud — burden of proof: The instruction will emphasize that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It may also highlight that the jury should consider the defendant's specific intent to defraud, the use of wire communications, and the resulting harm to the victim's right of honest services. If there are different variations or subcategories of this particular jury instruction, they may include specific examples relevant to the Bronx, New York jurisdiction. For instance, cases involving public officials or employees of local government agencies engaged in bribery or corruption could be outlined separately. However, without specific knowledge of Bronx, New York's legal practices and case history, it is difficult to provide more precise categorizations of this particular jury instruction.

In the Bronx, New York, jury instruction for the crime of wire fraud involving the deprivation of another's intangible right of honest services is explained in detail. Wire fraud refers to a fraudulent scheme conducted through wire communications, such as phone calls, emails, or electronic transfers. The specific type of wire fraud described in this jury instruction pertains to depriving another person of their intangible right to honest services. The concept of "intangible right of honest services" refers to the duty of an individual to act in a trustworthy manner and provide honest and faithful services in a professional capacity. This could apply to various settings, such as an employee defrauding their employer, a public official accepting bribes, or a professional athlete participating in match-fixing activities. When instructing the jury on this type of wire fraud, the following aspects may be addressed: 1. Definition of wire fraud: The jury will be informed about the general elements of wire fraud, emphasizing that it involves fraudulent intent, use of wire communications, and causing harm to the victim. 2. Intangible right of honest services: The instruction will delve into the nature of the intangible right, explaining that it pertains to the duty to provide honest and faithful services. Examples may be provided to illustrate how this right can be deprived, such as accepting kickbacks, engaging in bribery, or manipulating business transactions for personal gain. 3. Communication through wire: The instruction will elucidate that wire communications, such as emails, phone calls, or electronic transfers, were employed to facilitate the fraudulent scheme. It may be highlighted that even a single wire communication in furtherance of the fraud can establish this element. 4. Deprivation of honest services: The jury will be guided on the specific acts committed by the defendant that resulted in the deprivation of the victim's honest services. These acts should demonstrate a clear intent to defraud and harm the victim's right to honest services. 5. Elements of wire fraud — burden of proof: The instruction will emphasize that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It may also highlight that the jury should consider the defendant's specific intent to defraud, the use of wire communications, and the resulting harm to the victim's right of honest services. If there are different variations or subcategories of this particular jury instruction, they may include specific examples relevant to the Bronx, New York jurisdiction. For instance, cases involving public officials or employees of local government agencies engaged in bribery or corruption could be outlined separately. However, without specific knowledge of Bronx, New York's legal practices and case history, it is difficult to provide more precise categorizations of this particular jury instruction.