Ciminelli v. United States
The Facts
Louis Ciminelli was a Buffalo developer who rigged the state's bidding process to win contracts under Governor Cuomo's Buffalo Billion economic development initiative. Federal prosecutors charged Ciminelli with wire fraud under the right-to-control theory, which the Second Circuit had long recognized: by corrupting the bidding process, Ciminelli deprived New York of its right to control how it awarded contracts and who received economically valuable information. No one alleged the state paid more than fair value for the contracts received.
The Application
By rigging the bidding process, Ciminelli deprived New York of its right to control contract awards and access economically valuable information the precise injury the right-to-control theory was designed to address. However, deprivation of a right to make informed economic decisions, absent actual loss of money or property, falls outside Section 1343's scope. The Court thus held that wire fraud requires deprivation of money or property itself, not merely procedural safeguards or information rights.
The Conclusion
**The ruling eliminates one of the most commonly used theories for federal public corruption prosecution.** Prosecutors can no longer charge wire fraud based solely on a victim's lost opportunity to make an informed decision. Cases that rested on the right-to-control theory must be retried under a valid theory or dismissed.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the right-to-control theory of federal wire fraud, holding that deprivation of a victim's right to make informed economic decisions is not a scheme to defraud in connection with money or property. Justice Thomas wrote for the Court, reversing the conviction of a developer implicated in the Buffalo Billion corruption scheme.
Facts
Louis Ciminelli was a Buffalo developer who rigged the state's bidding process to win contracts under Governor Cuomo's Buffalo Billion economic development initiative. Federal prosecutors charged Ciminelli with wire fraud under the right-to-control theory, which the Second Circuit had long recognized: by corrupting the bidding process, Ciminelli deprived New York of its right to control how it awarded contracts and who received economically valuable information. No one alleged the state paid more than fair value for the contracts received.
Issue
Whether the right-to-control theory, which extends wire fraud liability to schemes that deprive victims of economically valuable information or the right to make informed economic decisions, is a valid basis for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Section 1343.
Rule
18 U.S.C. Section 1343 prohibits wire fraud schemes to obtain money or property. Carpenter v. United States (1987) extended the statute to intangible property rights, but the statute still requires that the object of the fraud be money or property rather than the mere right to make informed decisions.
Analysis
By rigging the bidding process, Ciminelli deprived New York of its right to control contract awards and access economically valuable information. The precise injury the right-to-control theory was designed to address. However, deprivation of a right to make informed economic decisions, absent actual loss of money or property, falls outside Section 1343's scope. The Court thus held that wire fraud requires deprivation of money or property itself, not merely procedural safeguards or information rights.
Conclusion
**The ruling eliminates one of the most commonly used theories for federal public corruption prosecution.** Prosecutors can no longer charge wire fraud based solely on a victim's lost opportunity to make an informed decision. Cases that rested on the right-to-control theory must be retried under a valid theory or dismissed.
Notes
OT2022. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support