Unpublished Disposition, 931 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 931 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1989)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.William Edward KINZEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-30037.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 1991.* Decided April 22, 1991.

Before KILKENNY, SNEED and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.


Kinzel appeals his conviction for wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (1988). We affirm.

Kinzel argues that the jury lacked sufficient evidence to find that he had the requisite intent to commit wire fraud. While Kinzel was indebted to a third party, he was informed by Bill Zylis, a stock broker, that a client of Cristobal Guillen, an associate of Zylis, wished to purchase $100,000 worth of municipal bonds. Kinzel telephoned Guillen and described some general obligation bonds of Lincoln County, Washington, that could be purchased from an eastern Washington bank. The client of Guillen, Ruth Cook, was informed and, on January 31, 1989, wired $100,000 to Kinzel's bank account in the Washington Trust Bank in Spokane. Two days later, Guillen learned that no such bonds had been issued by Lincoln County. Not surprisingly, no confirmation of a purchase was ever sent to Guillen or Cook. When called by Guillen to learn what had occurred, Kinzel responded that he did not know what kind of bonds had been purchased, but that he would find out. Several additional inquiries yielded no satisfactory explanation. In fact, no bonds had been purchased and Cook's $100,000 had been used to pay off Kinzel's debt to a third party.

A rational jury could conclude that Kinzel had the requisite intent on or before January 31, 1989. During that period, his debt to a third party provides a motive to defraud, his description of bonds that did not exist was fraudulent, and his failure to explain the disappearance of Cook's money and its use to pay Kinzel's third party debt strengthens the inference of an enduring intent to defraud within the designated period of time.



The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3