Is a mail or wire fraud conviction based on a sufficient property interest when a victim receives the full financial benefit of its bargain but, through material deceptions, is deprived of only its 'right to control' how to spend its money or make informed financial decisions, or is that outside the statutes' scope?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Ordinarily, mail or wire fraudsters trick victims to part with money or property, then abscond with the loot. But this case is not ordinary. Whenever Dr. Aldissi (a polymer chemist) and Dr. Bogomolova (a molecular biologist) submitted materially deceptive proposals to obtain contracts and grants from federal agencies to research conductive polymers (i.e., plastics that conduct electricity, which have important military and aeronautical applications), they always intended to and did fully perform and deliver their work. As charged and instructed, the verdict never found otherwise. Generally, schemes to deceive victims (which do not harm them because they otherwise receive the financial benefit of their bargains) are different from schemes to defraud victims (which do harm them because they are deprived of the financial benefit of their bargains). The former is not mail or wire fraud, whereas the latter is. Notwithstanding that distinction, the Government did not back off and prosecute Dr. Aldissi and Dr. Bogomolova for false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001). Instead, the Government prosecuted them for wire fraud (id. § 1343), aggravated identity theft (id. § 1028A), and falsification of records (id. § 1519). The questions presented are: 1.Is a mail or wire fraud conviction based on a sufficient property interest when a victim receives the full financial benefit of its bargain but, through material deceptions, is deprived of only its “right to control” how to spend its money or make informed financial decisions, or is that outside the statutes’ scope? (A 7-4 split.) 2. When a defendant deceptively seeks or obtains a contract or grant through a set-aside program, should loss and restitution be calculated as its entire amount, or is there an offset for the fair market value of the work performed? (A 3-3 split.) i