Whether the federal criminal fraud statutes maintain a reasonably prudent victim requirement

question presented is: Whether, when the government relies on an omissions theory of criminal mail fraud, a jury may also be instructed that “it is immaterial” that “only the most gullible or negligent would have been deceived by the defendant’s scheme” because the “mail fraud statute is designed to protect the naive and careless as well as the experienced and careful.” 2. In Kokeshv. S.E.C., 1378. Ct. 1635 (2017), this Court recently held that disgorgement is a “penalty” that cannot be imposed for fraud losses beyond the statute of limitations. The second question presented is: Whether conduct outside the statute of limitations can increase a fraud defendant’s loss calculation under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.