A crime in which the perpetrator develops a scheme using the mails to defraud another of money or property. This crime specifically requires the intent to defraud, and is a federal offense governed by section 1341 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. The mail fraud statute was first enacted in 1872 to prohibit illicit mailings with the Postal Service (formerly the Post Office) for the purpose of executing a fraudulent scheme.
Initially, courts strictly followed the mail Fraud statute's language and interpreted it narrowly. The early decisions required a connection between the fraudulent scheme and the misuse of the mails for a violation of the mail fraud statute. Since its enactment, application of the statute has evolved to include dishonest and fraudulent activities with only a tangential relationship to the mails.
Punishment for a conviction under the mail fraud statute is a fine or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. If, however, the violation affects a financial institution, the punishment is more severe: the statute provides that "the person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both."
Both the Supreme Court and Congress have consistently broadened the mail fraud statute since its enactment. Prior to a 1909 amendment, a violation of the mail fraud statute required proof, among other requirements, of either opening or intending to open correspondence or communication with another person. In 1909 Congress eliminated this requirement and replaced it with the language that the mails be used "for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do." This amendment followed the Supreme Court's decision in Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 16 S. Ct. 508, 40 L. Ed. 709 (1896), which held that the mailing only needed to "assist" in the completion of the fraud. Although this amendment was the last significant change until 1988, the Supreme Court has struggled with the relationship between the mailing element and the execution of the fraud.
最近买的房接手2个烂房客(兄妹俩，一个大学毕业，一个研究生毕业), 七月的房租一直不付，多次正式提醒。终于她们母亲 （也是人渣） 发来一个certified mail 和一个MONEY Order 副页 （没有正页）。一直没收到，上网一查，24号“Outfor delivery" 但至今一直显示”AwaitingDelivery Scan" 如下。
去邮局询问，邮件已不再 最后到达的邮局。邮局答应联系送信的人看是不是还在他那里。送信人回话，如果地址对，应送达， 但事实是一直没有送达。这种情况有没有人遇到过? 应该如何追查？是不是寄的就是一个副本，快到达时 （根据trackingtime) 打电话撤回？
现在就他们赖着不走（一直没lease), 嫌给几千块钱少也不走，准备驱赶。但CXX和白XX又来作妖，不知能不能赶成 。
现在在XX党的支持下这些无耻租客越来越没底线了。
先谢谢大家！
It is clearly stated in my contract.
Mail Fraud
Mail FraudAlso found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Acronyms, Wikipedia.
A crime in which the perpetrator develops a scheme using the mails to defraud another of money or property. This crime specifically requires the intent to defraud, and is a federal offense governed by section 1341 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. The mail fraud statute was first enacted in 1872 to prohibit illicit mailings with the Postal Service (formerly the Post Office) for the purpose of executing a fraudulent scheme.
Initially, courts strictly followed the mail Fraud statute's language and interpreted it narrowly. The early decisions required a connection between the fraudulent scheme and the misuse of the mails for a violation of the mail fraud statute. Since its enactment, application of the statute has evolved to include dishonest and fraudulent activities with only a tangential relationship to the mails.
Punishment for a conviction under the mail fraud statute is a fine or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. If, however, the violation affects a financial institution, the punishment is more severe: the statute provides that "the person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both."
Both the Supreme Court and Congress have consistently broadened the mail fraud statute since its enactment. Prior to a 1909 amendment, a violation of the mail fraud statute required proof, among other requirements, of either opening or intending to open correspondence or communication with another person. In 1909 Congress eliminated this requirement and replaced it with the language that the mails be used "for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do." This amendment followed the Supreme Court's decision in Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 16 S. Ct. 508, 40 L. Ed. 709 (1896), which held that the mailing only needed to "assist" in the completion of the fraud. Although this amendment was the last significant change until 1988, the Supreme Court has struggled with the relationship between the mailing element and the execution of the fraud.
因为白吃/CDC延长 EVICTION BAN，至今房客不回应。人渣房客没有LEASE，CONSTABLE 已送 30-DAY to QUIT，不知这种情况是否可以赶人。谢谢大家！