United States v. Clausen
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
792 F.2d 102 (1986)
Donald Clausen (defendant) opened a trading account with Conti-Commodity Services, Inc. (Conti). Clausen called Conti and placed an order for five contracts of silver futures. At the time, Clausen was experiencing financial troubles and was expecting to profit through the silver trade. However, the price of silver fell, and a Conti broker told Clausen that he now owed $22,500 as a result of the loss. Clausen brought a check for $22,500 to Conti’s office, knowing that he did not have enough money in his account to cover the check. Clausen then placed another order for five contracts of silver futures, expecting that the price of silver would rise and that he could earn all of his money back. Instead, the price of silver continued to fall, and Clausen faced another debt of $31,900. Clausen called his Conti broker days later and told the broker that the $22,500 check for the first debt payment would not clear and that he also could not make the second debt payment. The transaction resulted in a $47,883 loss for Conti. Clausen was indicted for wire fraud based on three phone calls made by Clausen while carrying out the scheme. The wire-fraud statute under which Clausen was charged provided that a defendant is guilty of wire fraud if the defendant: (1) devises any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain money or property by means of fraudulent pretenses or representations, or (2) transmits by wire any writings for the purpose of executing such a scheme. After a jury trial, Clausen was convicted. Clausen appealed, arguing that passing an insufficient-funds (NSF) check did not constitute a misrepresentation as required by the statute.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lay, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.