A grand jury indicted Simone Swenson on four counts of wire fraud and mail fraud based on a scheme to defraud prospective adoptive parents through her adoption agency. The heart of the scheme was her practice of “double matching”—matching two prospective families with the same birth mother and receiving payments from both families. She was ultimately convicted of just one count of mail fraud.

The count of conviction stemmed from a check for $1,800 to pay for birth-mother expenses. That check, in turn, was related to the double-matching scheme. The Court summarized the factual background in its opinion, demonstrating Swenson had requested the $1,800 from one family while she was negotiating the match with another. The family who sent the check believed they were “moving forward with the requirements of adoption” until they were falsely told after the mother had given birth that she had changed her mind. The birth-mother hadn’t changed her mind regarding that family, but had never heard about the second family and decided then to keep the baby. The $1,800 check sent by the first family was eventually returned to them uncashed. Neither family ended up adopting the child.

The Court decided there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of mail fraud. First, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Swenson had engaged in a scheme to defraud both families by double matching them with a single birth mother. The Court said the evidence supported the finding that Swenson had told both families at the same time that they were each matched with the birth mother, and thus would be able to adopt the child. Swenson made those statements to obtain the adoption and birth-mother fees. Second, the jury could have found she used the mails to further the scheme because it was reasonably foreseeable that the first family would respond to emails requesting payment. Third, the fact that the check was later returned “is of no moment.” The Government was not required to show that any victim suffered loss. The defendant need only have intended that she scheme would lead to something of value.

United States v. Swenson