Whether a defendant can be convicted of mail and wire fraud where the purported victim insurance companies were not deprived of money or property because the medical treatments were provided, reasonable and medically necessary, and the insurance companies were obligated to pay the claims regardless of the defendant's referral of patients

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Under the mail and wire fraud statutes, can a defendant be convicted where the purported victim insurance companies were not deprived of money or property because: the medical treatments received by referred patients were provided, reasonable and medically necessary; and the insurance companies were obligated to pay the claims regardless of petitioner’s referral of patients to the healthcare providers? (1) Does the court of appeals’ holding that: it makes no difference if insurance representatives admitted at trial that some claims may still have been compensable because with a fuller picture of the clinic’s practices, insurers would have investigated the claims [and this] fact alone shows that the information withheld had a “tendency to influence” their actions, even when it had no effect on whether they ultimately paid. conflict with this Court’s precedent that a “fraud conviction cannot stand when the loss to the victim is only an incidental byproduct of the scheme”? (3) Can the government satisfy the “money or property” requirement of the mail and wire fraud statutes by: relying on a state statute, that makes insurance claims submitted by a healthcare provider unenforceable and noncompensable as to the healthcare provider under state law because the healthcare provider used a “runner” as defined under state law to recruit patients; presenting no evidence that the medical treatments underlying the claims were not provided, unnecessary or unreasonable; and presenting no evidence that Petitioner was a “runner” as that term was defined under Minnesota law? i