United States v. Saini, No. 19-50196 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for possession of device making equipment (18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(4)), possession of at least fifteen unauthorized access devices (18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(3)), aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1)), and possession of stolen mail (18 U.S.C. 1708). Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in an identity theft and mail fraud scheme.
The panel agreed with defendant that "intent to defraud" is an intent to deceive and cheat—an intent to deprive the victim of money or property by deception. The panel explained that the plain and ordinary meaning of "intent to defraud" under section 1029(a)(3) and (4) is the intent to deprive the victim of money or property by deception. However, given the overwhelming evidence that defendant had the intent to cheat his victims, the panel concluded that the instructional error was harmless. The panel also concluded that defendant's remaining contentions are either meritless or unsupported.
Court Description: Criminal The panel affirmed convictions for possession of device making equipment (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(4)), possession of at least fifteen unauthorized access devices (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3)), aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)), and possession of stolen mail (18 U.S.C. § 1708), in a case in which the defendant argued that the district court reversibly erred by instructing the jury that “intent to defraud” under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) and (4) means an intent to deceive or cheat. The panel agreed with the defendant that “intent to defraud” is an intent to deceive and cheat—an intent to deprive the victim of money or property by deception. The panel wrote that the plain and ordinary meaning of “intent to defraud” under § 1029(a)(3) and (4) is the intent to deprive the victim of money or property by deception, and that legislative history supports this interpretation. Addressing the defendant’s argument about the harmlessness standard stated in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), the panel rejected the defendant’s claim that the omission of an element can be harmless only when the defendant made no attempt to dispute the element. The panel explained that whether the defendant contested the omitted element is not determinative; harmless error inquiry instead focuses on what the evidence showed regarding the defendant’s intent to defraud and whether the court can UNITED STATES V. SAINI 3 conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error. The panel concluded that the instructional error was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence that the defendant had the intent to cheat his victims. The panel rejected the defendant’s evidentiary challenges as either meritless or unsupported.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.