Whether the federal wire fraud statute criminalizes any 'implied misrepresentation' that induces another to enter into a financial transaction, even when the alleged misrepresentation relates to a fact extrinsic to the essential elements of the bargain

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner traded precious metals futures contracts on the COMEX, an electronic commodities exchange regulated by the Commodities Exchange Act. The government alleged that between 2008 and 2013 Petitioner engaged in “spoofing”—1.e., placed orders that he intended to cancel before a counter-party filled them. The government indicted Petitioner for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1348, alleging that his spoofing “deceive[d] other traders * * * regarding supply or demand” and thereby “induce[d] such traders into trading precious metals futures contracts at prices, quantities, and times that they would not have otherwise.” App.234a. The jury convicted Petitioner at a trial that did not occur until 26 months after the government indicted Petitioner. This petition presents the following questions on which the circuits are split: (1) Whether the federal wire fraud statute criminalizes any “implied misrepresentation” that induces another to enter into a financial transaction, even when the alleged misrepresentation relates to a fact extrinsic to the essential elements of the bargain, a question that this Court likely will address in Ciminelli v. United States, No. 21-1170. (2) Whether the Speedy Trial Act allows a district court to enter a retroactive “ends-of-justice” exclusion of time based on after-the-fact “ends-of-justice” findings, to “cure” a Speedy Trial Act violation that already has occurred. (1)