eme or intent to deprive the victim (various universities) of property or money. While the Court acknowledged that the universities did, in fact, lose property (scholarship money) by reason of defendant's deeds, it declined to find the requirements of the mail fraud statute met, since they were not out of pocket to defendant himself. Similarly, K-Mart was not out of pocket to Garzoni. Nowhere in the facts is it possible to conclude that Garzoni shared in the proceeds that defendant Aronds realized by way of either the JaGee Corporation's lease termination monies or the commission funds for negotiating the lease assignment to Sanco Realty Investments, Inc., by way of The Network Group, Inc., both of which Aronds either owned.
(It could even be argued that Garzoni was not privy to the information concerning the substantial amount -- $358,000 -- that JaGee was willing to pay to terminate the lease. Special Agents Mulder and Sculley state in their report that JaGee told Aronds -- not Garzoni -- that they were willing to pay to negotiate the lease. In fact, Garzoni was not involved with the transactions that led to Aronds receiving these proceeds from K-Mart. Rather, attorney Pulaski facilitated the payment to Aronds. Garzoni did, however, specifically fail to disclose to K-Mart that Sanco was also controlled by Aronds. By representing both K-Mart, through Network Group, and Sanco, as assignee, Aronds, specifically -- not necessarily Garzoni -- violated his fiduciary duty under Texas law, which does not permit a real estate broker to represent both sides in a transaction without express approval from both parties to the transaction.)
A distinguishing factor in the Walters case is that the defendant there was not a fiduciary, while Garzoni was, in fact, a fiduciary for K-Mart. Garzoni's fiduciary status, however, does not seem to be enough in light of later holdings.
(The following discussion of the "intangible right of hone...