U.S. v. SVETE, 556 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2009)
The panel reversed the conviction because the pattern jury instructions failed to instruct concerning whether it was reasonable for prudent investors to rely on defendants’ statements. The panel held that the inaccuracy in the jury instruction impaired the defendants’ ability to argue that, in light of the available documentation, it was unreasonable for any prudent investor to have relied on the defendants’ contrary statements, or not to seek independent advice. Svete, 521 F.3d 1302. The en banc Court reversed the panel, finding that the mail fraud statute does not require proof that a scheme to defraud would deceive persons of ordinary intelligence. A jury must only find that the scheme would have deceived a prudent and ordinary investor, and not simply one who may be gullible.
