<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/07/01/supreme-court-limits-federal-honest-services-fraud-statute/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 11:32:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Limits Federal &#8220;Honest Services&#8221; Fraud Statute</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/07/01/supreme-court-limits-federal-honest-services-fraud-statute/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-limits-federal-honest-services-fraud-statute</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/07/01/supreme-court-limits-federal-honest-services-fraud-statute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:11:34 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black v. US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Skilling v. US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=10732?d=20150120101631EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since the enactment of the “honest services” fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which defines the scope of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes to include the use of interstate means of communication to effect a “scheme or artifice to defraud … another of the intangible right of honest services,” federal prosecutors have used [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Edward F. Greene, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Thursday, July 1, 2010 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.cgsh.com/egreene/" target="_blank">Edward Greene</a> is a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen &amp; Hamilton LLP focusing on corporate law matters. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memo and relates to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in <em>Skilling v. United States</em> and <em>Black v. United States</em>, which are available <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;navby=case&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=08-1394" target="_blank">here </a>and <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;navby=case&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=08-876" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>Since the enactment of the “honest services” fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which defines the scope of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes to include the use of interstate means of communication to effect a “scheme or artifice to defraud … another of the intangible right of honest services,” federal prosecutors have used the provision in numerous cases to combat public and private corruption, and alleged corporate wrongdoing – even in situations where the defendant does not directly obtain money or property from the alleged victims of the fraud. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two opinions that significantly restrict the scope of this statute. <em>Skilling v. United States</em>, 561 U.S, No. 08-1394 (June 24, 2010); <em>Black v. United States</em>, 561 U.S., No. 08-876 (June 24, 2010).</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/07/01/supreme-court-limits-federal-honest-services-fraud-statute/#more-10732" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Supreme Court Limits Federal &#8220;Honest Services&#8221; Fraud Statute">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/07/01/supreme-court-limits-federal-honest-services-fraud-statute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
