Lack of Authority Defense in Mail and Wire Fraud

Understanding the Lack of Authority Defense

In cases of mail fraud or wire fraud, a common defense raised is the lack of authority of the defendant. This defense is frequently used in the context of agents and employers, especially when the prosecution attempts to demonstrate that false representations made by an agent show that the defendant possessed fraudulent intent.

How the Lack of Authority Defense Works

A defendant may argue that they lacked the authority to approve or ratify the fraudulent actions of their agents. To successfully establish this defense, the defendant must show that they did not authorize or affirm the misrepresentation. In such cases, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was involved in the fraudulent activity, either by direct authorization or through other forms of complicity.

Evidence Commonly Used in the Lack of Authority Defense

In some cases, the prosecution may present evidence of misrepresentation repeated by different agents or salesmen. This can strengthen the case against the defendant by suggesting a common scheme or a coordinated effort to commit fraud. However, this individual intent is not always required for the prosecution to secure a conviction, especially in corporate fraud cases.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, employers can be held liable for the actions of their employees or agents if those actions occur within the normal scope of their duties and are intended to benefit the company. This doctrine can make it easier for prosecutors to hold corporations liable for the fraudulent actions of their employees.

Application in Corporate Fraud Cases

In corporate fraud cases, the lack of authority defense may be less effective. The respondeat superior doctrine places the burden on employers to demonstrate that the fraud was not part of the employee’s authorized actions. Even if an employee misrepresented facts or acted fraudulently, the employer may still be held accountable if the actions were taken to benefit the company.

Conclusion

While the lack of authority defense can be a powerful tool in individual fraud cases, its application in corporate fraud cases is limited by the doctrine of respondeat superior. If you’re facing charges of mail fraud or wire fraud, it’s essential to understand all potential defenses and how they apply to your situation. Speak with an experienced mail fraud defense lawyer to discuss your options.