Kousisis v. United States: Wire Fraud Doesn't Require Intent to Cause a Money Loss

Federal prosecutors do not have to prove that your loved one meant to cause the victim a financial loss to win a wire fraud case. On May 22, 2025, in Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court approved the "fraudulent inducement" theory.

The case involved Pennsylvania Department of Transportation contracts. The defendants got paid for real work. But the government said they lied about meeting disadvantaged-business requirements to win the contracts. They argued it was not fraud because the state got what it paid for.

The Court disagreed. It held that a person who gets someone to enter a deal through materially false statements can be convicted of federal fraud. That is true even if the person did not try to cause the victim a net money loss. The Court pointed out that the wire fraud law, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, does not mention economic loss. It also stressed that the lie must be material, meaning important to the deal, and said that requirement limits the theory.

What this means for your family

If your loved one is under investigation over government contracts, grants, loans, or business deals, "nobody lost money" is not a full defense. The fight often turns on other questions:

• Was the statement false?

• Was it material?

• Did your loved one intend to deceive?

Early review of the documents and emails matters.

Your next step

If agents have contacted your loved one about a fraud matter, do not let them talk to agents without a lawyer. Book a consultation to talk about your case.