[EagleUSA]

I am a little confused on this one. Some of the justices are talking about "tax evasion" and the others about "wire fraud". It would appear from the article that the issue is wire fraud, and the U.S. prosecuted for same. At the same time, Canada did not choose to pursue tax evasion(?). Strange.

So why are the others talking about "tax evasion" and prosecution for same as a basis, or part of, their opinions?

[KeyesPlease]

At least Thomas is consistent. In this case the operative language is "any scheme". In the gun case, it is "any court".

[Lurking Libertarian]

I am a little confused on this one. Some of the justices are talking about "tax evasion" and the others about "wire fraud". It would appear from the article that the issue is wire fraud, and the U.S. prosecuted for same. At the same time, Canada did not choose to pursue tax evasion(?). Strange.

The U.S. prosecution was for wire fraud-- using interstate phone calls to carry out a "scheme to defraud." The issue in the case was whether the words "scheme to defraud" in the wire fraud statute include a scheme to evade Canadian taxes-- no one but the government of Canada was defrauded, and Canada was defrauded of nothing but tax revenue.