Ciminelli v United States

Allegations & issues

The prosecution concerned alleged manipulation of the bidding process for New York’s Buffalo Billion development programme. It relied on depriving the project administrator of valuable information needed to make economic decisions. [1, pp. 1–4]

Key rulings & findings

The right to valuable economic information was not a traditional property interest protected by the federal fraud statutes. The theory used at trial therefore could not sustain the convictions. [1, pp. 4–10]

Admissions

This was a contested criminal appeal following conviction, not a settlement or guilty plea. [1]

Disposition

Second Circuit judgment reversed and case remanded. [1, p. 10; 2]

Penalties, damages & redress

The Supreme Court did not impose a new sentence or monetary penalty. Its disposition required further proceedings below. [1, p. 10]

Restrictions & obligations

The ruling addressed the statutory basis for the convictions, not professional licensing. [1]

The difference between information and property

Under the challenged theory, withholding information that could influence a financial decision was treated as depriving the victim of control over its assets. The trial instructions adopted that approach, and the Second Circuit upheld the convictions under its existing precedents. [1, pp. 2–4]

The Supreme Court held that this intangible interest could not substitute for the traditional money-or-property requirement. Otherwise, the fraud statutes could become a general mechanism for policing honesty in transactions beyond the limits Congress had enacted. [1, pp. 4–9]

Why the disposition was reversal and remand

The government asked the Court to sustain the result using a different view of the property involved. The Court declined to reconstruct the prosecution around a theory not used to obtain the convictions. It reviewed the actual legal basis of the judgment before it. [1, pp. 9–10]

The remand matters when describing the outcome. A Supreme Court reversal of an invalid theory is a substantial defence victory, but this opinion did not itself resolve every question about the next stage of the prosecution. Justice Alito’s concurrence expressly addressed that procedural limit. [1, concurrence; 2]

THE UNDERLYING RECORD

Primary sources

Read the full documents for their precise wording and context. Regulator summaries are identified separately from court records.