库西西诉美国案

Stamatios Kousisis and Alpha Painting and Construction Co. secured two PennDOT contracts for Philadelphia painting projects. Federal regulations required subcontracting a portion to a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE). Kousisis falsely represented Alpha would obtain paint from Markias, Inc., a prequalified DBE. In reality, Markias served only as a pass-through entity, funneling checks and invoices, violating the requirement that DBEs perform a “commercially useful function”. Alpha completed the projects satisfactorily and earned over $20 million in gross profit. The government charged wire fraud and conspiracy based on fraudulent-inducement theory. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the convictions, holding that a defendant inducing a victim into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even without seeking to cause economic loss.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit’s decision. Justice Barrett authored the unanimous opinion, holding that the wire fraud statute does not require economic loss. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor issued separate concurrences. Kousisis was sentenced to 70 months in prison; Alpha was fined $500,000 and ordered to forfeit contract profits.

Whether a defendant may be convicted of federal wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 when the scheme induced the victim to enter a transaction through material misrepresentations but did not intend or cause net economic loss to the victim. The Court resolved a circuit split on whether the fraudulent-inducement theory requires proof of economic harm.

The decision marked a victory for federal prosecutors, endorsing an expansive reading of wire fraud. Government contractors face heightened exposure under criminal fraud and civil False Claims Act theories for false representations, even without demonstrable financial harm. The ruling shifts focus to materiality—whether misrepresentations would have affected the victim’s decision—which will likely become the central issue in future litigation. Concurring justices expressed concern about potentially overbroad criminal liability.