Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

KOUSISIS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 23–909. Argued December 9, 2024—Decided May 22, 2025

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) awarded petitioners Stamatios Kousisis and Alpha Painting and Construction Co. two contracts for painting projects in Philadelphia. Federal regu- lations required contract awardees to subcontract a portion of every contract to a disadvantaged business enterprise. So as part of the bid- ding process, Kousisis falsely represented that Alpha would obtain its paint supplies from Markias, Inc., a prequalified disadvantaged busi- ness. This was a lie. Unbeknownst to PennDOT, Kousisis arranged for Markias to function as a mere “pass-through” entity. As a pass- through, Markias did not provide any paint supplies. To the contrary, its only role was that of a paper pusher, funneling checks and invoices to and from Alpha’s actual suppliers. Not only did this arrangement contradict Kousisis’s prior representations, it also violated the require- ment that disadvantaged businesses perform a “commercially useful function.” 49 CFR §26.55(c). In the end, however, Alpha performed the painting projects to PennDOT’s satisfaction and pocketed over $20 million in gross profit. The Government charged Alpha and Kousisis with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit the same. 18 U. S. C. §§1343, 1349. The charges were premised on the fraudulent-inducement theory—in other words, that petitioners had induced PennDOT to award them the painting contracts under materially false pretenses. After a jury convicted Al- pha and Kousisis of wire fraud, they moved for acquittal. In their view, despite the lack of disadvantaged-business participation, PennDOT had received the full economic benefit of its bargain. So, petitioners contended, the Government could not prove that they had schemed to defraud PennDOT of “money or property” as §1343 requires. The 2 KOUSISIS v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

Third Circuit rejected this argument, deepening the division over the validity of a federal fraud conviction when the defendant did not seek to cause the victim net pecuniary loss. Held: A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. Pp. 5–20. (a) To convict Alpha and Kousisis, the Government needed to prove that they used the wires to execute a “scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pre- tenses, representations, or promises.” §1343. Under this Court’s prec- edent, a defendant commits wire fraud only if he both engaged in de- ception and had money or property as an object of his fraud. See Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U. S. 306, 312. It follows from this rule, Alpha and Kousisis say, that a federal fraud conviction cannot stand unless the defendant sought to cause the victim net pecuniary loss. Not so. The fraudulent-inducement theory is consistent with both the text of §1343 and this Court’s precedent. Pp. 5–20. (1) The text of §1343 does not mention economic loss, let alone re- quire it. In fact, Alpha and Kousisis’s conduct satisfied each element