WPCe sYB~v^~bw Ynq2V\zrPOо3*(fHgMCx E-uJ\YΎL"3(P.1ao Kyc눾 XKNɵ VIrv:M".osV! >t z[u3GQ_p (8܃?%ڮAF Ɛ\WqK!!\%\%\% 0UX& 0& 0' 0|( 0_) B?* 0\* 09+ 0, 0, 0C- 0. 0. 0/ 0}0 0K1 02 02 03 0@c4 04 0w5 0H6 07 07 08 0n9 00: 00: 0<; 0Y; 0>< 0vU< 0`< 0`+= 0`= 0`= 0`K> 08> 0> 02? 0? 0:@ 0YA 0_vA 0 A 0jB 0ID B*E D/E D+&F 0QF D/G 0H 06H 0I 0:J 0^JJ 0<J 1eJ 0NIKU6KU>KU* Lm5L 1uM 72NNINININININININ_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_N_NgNgNgNgNgNgNSOSOUUUUUUUUSUUUUUUUUUUE\E\E\E\E\E\bHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2#$ !XFXXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@ (A Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular  #$XFXXX      2    _Indeed,_Pimental_Ԁstressesonappealthatitispossiblethat  heactuallylostmoneyfrommisrepresentingthetypeofoperations  hiscompanyperformed,becausesomeofthoseoperationswere \ cheapertoinsurethanwasconcrete_rebar_.1s n1?,}backup3|xTABLE A.U<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -\( 9Z+&Courier Regular M #$XFXXX      11    _Severaldistrictcourtdecisionshaveaddressedtheissue.  See,e.g.,InreGrandJuryProceedings,158F.Supp.2d96(D.  Mass.2001). v #$XFXXX      6    _Thefactsof_Bruckman_clearlyillustratethisprinciple.The  defendantinthatcasesubmittedafraudulentfinancialstatement  toabankruptcycourtinconnectionwiththeattemptedpurchaseof \ acorporationunderthatcourt'sprotection.874F.2dat5960. 2 Thebankruptcycourt'ssubsequentmailingsofthestatementtothe X corporation'screditorsformedthebasisforthedefendant's . convictions.Id.at60.Inrespondingto_Bruckman_'scausation   argument,thecourtheldthatitwasnotnecessaryforthe   bankruptcycourt'smailingstothecompany'screditorstohavebeen `  reasonablyforeseeable.Rather,itwassufficientthatthere"was 6   ampleevidencefromwhichthejurycouldconcludeboththat  \  _Bruckman_Ԁparticipatedintheschemetodefraud,andthatsomeuse  2  ofthemailswastobeanticipatedinthecourseofsuchscheme."   Id.(emphasisadded).Becausethe"jurycouldreasonablyinfer   thatmailingswouldbeforeseeableinthecourseofthebankruptcy d  reorganizationproceedingsrelatedtotheintendedacquisitionof :  [thecorporation]by_Bruckman_Ԁandothers,"therewassufficient `  evidenceforthejurytoconclude"that_Bruckman_Ԁknowinglycaused 6 themailings"atissue.Id.     #$XFXXX      9    _ThisActiscodifiedinthenotestoMass.Gen.L.ch.266,  111B,ratherthaninthesectionitself.Thisconfusingchoice  ofcodificationhasresultedintheincorrectreferencingofthe \ Actascodifiedas"Mass.Gen.Lawsch.427,11."See,e.g.,In 2 reJustices,218F.3dat13.  )2 ' Turner0Turner .    A #$XFXXX      5    _TheflexibilityoftheEnglishlanguageisoneofits  wonders;thatflexibilitycanleadtomisunderstandings._ Pacheco_ Ԅ  Ortizsimplysaidthat"forthemailingstobeconsideredin \ furtheranceofthescheme,thescheme'scompletionorthe 2 preventionofitsdetectionmusthavedependedinsomewayonthe X mailings."889F.3dat305(internalquotationsomitted)(emphasis . added).Itdidnotsaytherewasa"butfor"requirement.The   dictionarydoessaythattheword"depend"canmeanthatsomething   is"anecessarycondition,"butthewordcanalsomean"tohavea `  connectionorrelationshipasasubordinatepartorappurtenance." 6   Webster'sThirdNewInternationalDictionary604(1993). #$XFXXX      1    _Allsubsequentreferencestopremiumratesareperhundred  dollarsofpayroll.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   d*;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK_<6X9`(Courier NewKS`\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K_<6X9`(Courier NewKS`\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K_<6X9`(Courier NewKS`\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7S(X7  ?a%2A`Arial?  S`\  `&Times New RomanS7T(X7&  d dR)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7V(X7  ?a%2A`Arial?  S`\  `&Times New RomanS7T(X7R)2dxd0KS.SampleK_<6X9`(Courier NewKS`\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK_<6X9`(Courier NewKS`\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ,-./0123 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial c #$XFXXX      8    _Thegovernmentassumed_arguendo_Ԁforpurposesofthisappeal  thatRule6(e)wasviolated.Wethinkitbettertoaddressthe  issuedirectly.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ci)    #$XFXXX      *    _OftheThirdCircuitCourtofAppeals,sittingby  designation.  #$XFXXX      3    _AsrecountedinPartI,therewassignificantevidencethat,  inadditiontolyingaboutthenatureofPimentalSteel's  operations,Pimentalalsoliedaboutthesizeofthecompany's \ payroll._Pimental_Ԁsaysthatthisevidence"onlyestablishedthat 2 inworkers'compensationinsuranceapplications,[he]made X estimatesofthepayroll,whichoftenvarywidelyfromtheactual . payroll,particularlyintheconstructionindustry."Notso.   Therewasmorethansufficientevidenceforthejurytofindthat   _Pimental_Ԁdidindeedmisrepresentthesizeof_Pimental_ԀSteel's `  payrollinanefforttodefraudtheinsurancecompanies. 6   Nonetheless,inordertosimplifytheanalysisofwhetherCount  \  Fourwasinfurtheranceofthefraudulentscheme,seeinfraPart  2  _III.B.ii_.,wefocuson_Pimental_'smisrepresentationsconcerningthe   natureof_Pimental_ԀSteel'soperations. #$XFXXX      4    _AsPimentaldoesnotraisethisissue,wedonotaddressit. I #$XFXXX      7    _PimentalalsoreliesonUnitedStatesv.Smith,934F.2d270  (11thCir.1991),whichisindeedintensionwithouranalysis.  Thatcaseinvolvedaninsurancefraudinwhichthedefendantfaked \ aninjuryfromastagedautomobileaccident.Id.at271.The 2 defendantreceivedaclaimsdraft,whichissimilartoacheck,in X personfromtheinsuranceagent,butacopyofthedraftwassent . totheinsurancecompany.Id.Thecourtfoundthattherewas   insufficientevidencethattheuseofthemailswasreasonably   foreseeablebecauseitwasnotcommonknowledgethatinsurance `  companiesmailaccountingcopiesofdrafts.Seeid.at273.Inso 6   holding,thecourtagreed"thatitisforeseeablethat  \  communicationsinvolvingthepolicy,thedetailsoftheclaim,or  2  requestsforthepaymentoftheclaimwouldbemailed."Id.But   thecourtfoundthistobeirrelevantbecause"thesubstantive   countsof[thedefendant's]indictmentdidnotallegesuch d  mailings."Id. :    TotheextentthatSmithisinconsistentwithouranalysis,we `   rejectitsapproach.  #$XFXXX      10    _In_Tager_,thegovernmentdisclosedgrandjurymaterialtoMr.  House,anemployeeoftheInsuranceCrimePreventionInstitute  (_ICPI_),anorganizationfundedbyinsurancecompaniesforthe \ purposeofinvestigatingpossiblefraudsagainstthem.638F.2dat 2 168.Unlikeinthiscase,though,therewasnodoubtthat X "[_n]either_Ԁthe_ICPI_ԀnorMr.Housewasinanyofficialposition . whatsoever."Id.Theopiniondoesnotindicatethatanystatute   existedthatestablishedorauthorizedthe_ICPI_,providedforits   fundingorstructure,orgaveitspecialresponsibilitiesor `  privileges.Seeid.ThecourtbrieflynotedthatRule 6   6(e)(3)(A)(ii)didnotapplybecauseMr.Housewasnot"government  \  personnel,"andspentthebulkoftheopinionconsideringan  2  entirelyseparateexceptiontograndjurysecrecythatisnotat    issuehere.Seeid.at16869.  #$XFXXX      12    _Thedistrictcourtsawthingsdifferently,sayingthatTager,  638F.2d167,involveda"finding[that]thegovernmentviolated  Rule6(e)(3)(A)(ii)undercircumstancesmaterially \  indistinguishablefromthosehere."Pimental,199F.R.D.at35.  _Tager_hasverylittletodowiththiscase,wherethereisno  immediatelyobviousanswertothequestionofwhetherthepersonto \ whomthedisclosurewasmadewasgovernmentpersonnel. !XFXXX  _=FXXdd==FXdXXd=TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! XXXXF hX X     fOY&UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  h  FortheFirstCircuit    XFX   A') ` dE< ` A      `     h Nos.031098 K    031153 ! q @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,    @Appellant/CrossAppellee, y  @tt)v. %u  @xx!ARTHURL._PIMENTAL_, ! @| | Defendant,Appellee/CrossAppellant. } A') ` dE<(` A )y @` ` APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT ^   FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS   ^@P P [Hon.NancyGertner,U.S.DistrictJudge] f A') ` dE<` A b @'Before G   @@((Lynch,CircuitJudge,   Ѐ_Rosenn_,SeniorCircuitJudge, #  *      ׀and y! Lipez,CircuitJudge. O " A') ` dE<"` A "!%       MarkJ._Balthazard_,AssistantU.S.Attorney,withwhomMichael #' J.Sullivan,U.S.Attorney,wasonbrief,forappellant. $(   JamesC.Rehnquist,withwhomSarahE.Walters,MiriamKim, b% ) andGoodwinProcter_LLP_wereonbrief,forappellee. 8&!* *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '4#,'4# $  SIH(#- @38228@S August30,2004 )n$/  RHC)D%0" @38228 @ R ," H(#1 ? ,_ * !XFXX XF  8FXXdd8*,X` XX* ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .Thisworkers'compensation  insurancefraudcriminalcaseproducedanappealfrombothsides. x Thegovernmentappealsthedistrictcourt'sdismissaloftwocounts $t onwhichajuryhadconvicted,whilethedefendantcrossappealson   thegroundthattheentirecaseshouldhavebeendismissedbecause |  ofanallegedviolationofthegrandjurysecrecyrule,embodiedin ( x  Fed.R.Crim.P.6(e).Weconclude,despitetheable $  representationofPimental,that(1)thedistrictcourterredin   dismissingthetwocountsandwereinstatethejuryconvictionsand ,|  concludethat(2)therewasnoviolationbytheprosecutionhereof ( Rule6(e)atall.Thissecondpointisamatteroffirst  impression. 0  ` AfterajuryconvictedArthurPimentaloftwocountsof , mailfraud,thedistrictcourtdismissedtheconvictionsbecauseit  foundthatthetwounderlyingmailingswerenot"infurtherance"of 4 Pimental'sfraudulentscheme.UnitedStatesv.Pimental,236F. 0 Supp.2d99(D.Mass.2002).Pimental'sschemeinvolvedlyingto   variousworkers'compensationinsurancecompanyrepresentatives 8!" aboutthenatureandscopeofhiscompany'swork;hisfalse "4$ statementstendedtoreducethepremiumpaymentsheowedfor $& workers'compensationinsurance.# XFXXXF. #XFXX XFԀThegovernmentappealsthe <&!( districtcourt'sdecision,arguingthatthetwomailingsfurthered '8#* Pimental'sschemebyhelpingtoensurethattheinsurancecompany )$, didnotdiscoverhisearliermisrepresentations. @+&.  ` Pimentalcrossappeals,arguingthathisindictment  shouldbedismissedbecausetheprosecutingattorneydisclosed \ secretgrandjurymaterialsto# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀaninvestigatorforthe X MassachusettsInsuranceFraudBureau(IFB).Pimentalarguesthat   theruleallowingdisclosureofgrandjurymaterialsto# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀ"government `  personnel"incertaincircumstances,Fed.R.Crim.P.  \  6(e)(3)(a)(ii),wasinapplicablebecausetheIFBinvestigator# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀwas   aprivateactor.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀTheIFB,whichinvestigatespotentialcasesof d  insurancefraud,# XFXXXF&#XFXX XFԀisauthorizedandstructuredbyMassachusetts `  statute,butpartiallyrunandentirelyfundedbyinsurers.    ` Wereversethedistrictcourt'sdismissalofPimental's h convictions,findingthatthemailingsbyinsurancecompany d representativesthatformedthebasisofthetwocountsof  convictionwere# XFXXXF#XFXX XFindeedinfurtheranceofPimental'sfraudulent l scheme.Additionally,werejectPimental'scrossappealbecausewe h concludethatthefirstdistrictcourt(notthetrialcourt)did  noterrwhenitfoundtheIFBinvestigatorshereare"government p  personnel"withinthemeaningofFed.R.Crim.P.6(e)(3)(A)(ii) !l" andsoauthorizedtheprosecutortorevealgrandjurymaterialsto "$ them. t$&   I.FactualBackground   &p!(  ` Thefactsaredescribedinthelightmostfavorableto '8#*  thejury'sguiltyverdict. )$,  ` ArthurPimentalandhiswife,LorettaPimental(forease   ofreferencewerefertoherasLorettaandtoArthurasPimental), \ ownedandoperatedPimentalSteelErectors("PimentalSteel") X startingsometimeintheearly1980's. Inlate1989,Pimental   Steelalloweditsworkers'compensationinsurancetolapse;this `  violatedMassachusettslaw. Massachusettsrequiresallemployers  \  tomaintainworkers'compensationinsurancewhichcoverstheir   employeesinthecaseofanonthejobinjuryorjobrelated d  illness.Mass.Gen.L.ch.152,25A.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀOverthreeyearslater,in `  April1993,ArthurPimentalmailedawrittenapplicationtothe   MassachusettsWorkers'CompensationRatingandInspectionBureau h (MWCRIB)toresumePimentalSteel'sworkers'compensationcoverage.  d MWCRIB,aprivatenonprofitassociationofinsurersthatis  licensedunderMassachusettslaw,Mass.Gen.L.ch.152.52C, l usesariskpooltoassigninsurancecompaniestoprovideworkers' h compensationinsuranceonpresettermstoapplicantemployers.  Thefraudchargesstartedhere. p    ` OntheMWCRIBapplicationform,Pimentaldescribedthe !l" operationsofhisbusinessasinvolving"concreteconstruction "$ incl[uding]foundations"andaddedthatit"putsinfoundations."  t$& Concretefoundationworkinvolveslayingconcreteandreinforcing  &p!( itwithsteelrodsandisalsoknownas"rebar." MWCRIBprocessed '#* theapplication,assignedittotheHartfordFireInsuranceCompany x)$, ("HartfordInsurance"),andnotifiedPimentalviathemailthatthe $+t&. estimatedpremiumfortheyear,basedonhisapplication,was  $12,425.  \  ` DespitewhatwassaidintheMWCRIBapplication,Pimental X Steelhadneveratanypointbeeninvolvedinconcretefoundation   work.Rather,throughouttherelevantperiod,itsbusiness `  performedmainlysteelerectionandrelatedwork,suchaswelding  \  anddecking. Steelerectioninvolvestheplacementofgirders,   columns,andjointstosupportastructure,thenlayingcorrugated d  metaldeckingfortheceilingandfloorsofthebuildingand `  weldingitintoplace.Steelerectionworkcarriesa   significantlyhigherriskofinjurythandoesconcretefoundation h work. d  ` Becauseworkers'compensationpremiumsaresetbasedupon  thekindofworkperformedandtheamountofabusiness'spayroll, l Pimental'sincorrectdescriptionontheMWCRIBapplicationaffected h thepremiumpaymentsPimentalSteelowed. In1993,thepremium  paymentforsteelerectionofstructuresovertwostorieswas p  $99.35pereveryhundreddollarsofpayroll #  1      ׀(reducedto$69.22for !l" structuresundertwostories),whiletheratewas$41.22for "$ concretefoundationwork. SomeoftheworkthatPimentalSteel t$& actuallyperformed,however,hadlowerpremiumratesthanconcrete <&!( foundationwork:theratefordeckingwas$24.66or$19.82, '8#* dependingonthetypeofmetalused,whiletherateforweldingwas  $23.56. Where,asinthecaseofPimentalSteel,employeesperform \ tasksthathavedifferentpremiumrates,thetotalpremiumcostcan X becalculatedbyparsingoutthehoursthatemployeesspentoneach   differenttask,solongasappropriatedocumentationismaintained. `   Onewitnesstestifiedthat80%oftheworkPimentalSteeldidfor  \  himwassteelerectionanddeckingandthattheremaining20%was   "miscellaneous." d   ` InSeptemberof1993,JosephF.Brugman,anauditorfor `  HartfordInsurance,metwithLorettaPimentaltoperformaninitial   auditonPimentalSteel'sinsuranceapplication. Inadditionto h suchinitialaudits,whichareconductedatthestartofan d insurer'srelationshipwithaninsured,insurersnormallyperform  auditsonceayearattheconclusionofeachannualpolicyperiod.  l Theauditorsdeterminetheinsuranceclassificationforthework h thattheinsured'semployeesperformedandthetotalamountof  salarypaidtothem. Usingthisinformation,theinsurance p  companiescalculatethefinalamountthattheemployerowesforthe !l" year.  "$  ` Duringtheinitialauditmeeting,LorettatoldBrugman t$& thatPimentalSteelwas,astheMWCRIBapplicationhadrepresented,  &p!( involvedinconcretefoundationwork. ShedidnottellBrugman '#* thatPimentalSteelwasinvolvedinanywayinsteelerection, x)$, welding,ordecking,eventhoughBrugmanexplainedtoherthat $+t&. PimentalSteel'soperationscouldbesplitintodifferent  classificationsforinsurancepurposes. Atthelateryearend \ auditinJuly1994,alsoconductedbyBrugman,Lorettarepeated X thisdescriptionofPimentalSteel'sbusinessoperations.     ` SeveralmonthsafterBrugmanconductedhisyearend `  audit,WilliamBrooks,alosscontrolinspectorforHartford  \  Insurance,metwithArthurPimental.Incontrasttoauditors,the   purposeoflosscontrolinspectorsisnottoverifytheaccuracyof d  theinformationgivenbypolicyholders,butinsteadto"assist[] `  policyholdersintheireffortstocontrolcostlyaccidentsand/or   injuries."DuringthatmeetingPimentalonceagainrepresented, h wrongly,thathisbusinessinvolvedrebar.Pimentalalsotold d Brooksthathedidnotcurrentlyhaveanyemployeesandthatthere  werenotanyongoingprojectsthatBrookscouldobserve. Thiswas l alsonottrue:Pimentalpaidanemployeewagesthreedaysafterhis h meetingwithBrugman.    ` OnOctober5,1994,Brooksmailedan"AccountData p  Report"toHartfordInsurancethatsummarizedhismeetingwith !l" Pimental. Theletterbeganbystatingthat"[t]heinsured "$ describeshisbusiness[]asthatoftheinstallationofreenforcing t$& barsandrodsforfloorsandwalls." Brooks'sstandardpracticeis  &p!( toinforminsuredsthathewillturnoveracopyofhisloss '#* controlreporttotheinsurancecompany,andthatthecompanywill x)$, informtheemployerofanyrecommendationstoimproveworker $+t&. safety. However,Brookstestifiedthathehadnospecific  recollectionofwhetherhehadinformedPimentalofthisprocedure \ duringtheirmeeting.  X  ` ThePimentalsrenewedtheirworkers'compensation   insurancecoveragewithHartfordInsuranceinMay1995. Hartford `  sentthemaletterdetailingthetermsofcoverage;underthe  \  heading"BusinessofNamedInsured,"theletterread"concrete   construction." InJuly1995,HartfordauditorMarkLawrencemet d  withLorettaPimentaltoconductanauditoftheMay1994toMay `  1995policyperiod. Duringthatmeeting,LawrenceaskedLorettaif   thecompanydidanysteelerectionwork,giventhatthecompany's h nameis"PimentalSteelErectors." Lorettarespondedthatthe d companyonlydidconcreterebarwork,anddidnotworkonsteel  erection,despiteitsname.  l  ` LawrencealsoaskedLorettafordocumentationofPimental h Steel'swagepaymentstoemployees. LorettatoldLawrencethat  therewasnosinglerecorddetailingpayroll.Instead,she   providedhimwithacheckbookthathadbeenusedtomakepayroll 8!" payments,alongwithawrittensummaryofthatcheckbook,andtold "4$ himthattherewerenoadditionalrecords. Fromthesedocuments, $& LawrencecalculatedthatPimentalSteelhadpaid$28,885insalary <&!( toitsemployeesfortheyearfromMay1994toMay1995,resulting '8#* inatotalpremiumof$13,586. Infact,PimentalSteel'sactual )$, payrollduringthatperiodwas$85,499,afigurewhichwouldhave \+&. ledtoalargerpremium. ThePimentalsusednonsequentially  numberedchecksintheirbusinessanditappearsthatthesingle \ checkbookgiventoLawrencecontainedonlyafractionofallthe X checkswrittenonbehalfofPimentalSteelfromthepreviousyear.     ` InJuly1995,HartfordInsuranceattemptedtoarrange `  anotherlosscontrolmeetingwithArthurPimental. AfterPimental  \  didnotrespondtothreeseparateinquiries,TimothyBergeron,a   SeniorLossControlConsultantforHartfordInsurance,senthima d  finalletterstatingthat"failuretoallowreasonableaccessfor `  thepurposeoflosscontrolconsultationisaviolationofthegood   faithprovisionsintheWorkers'CompensationInsurancePlanand h cansubjectyourpolicytocancellation." Underthatthreatof d cancellation,PimentalfinallymetwithBergerononSeptember21,  1995.  l  ` Duringthemeeting,PimentaltoldBergeronthatPimental h Steelcontinuedtoperformrebarwork;hefalselysaidthecompany  didnotperformanystructuralsteelerectionormetaldeckwork.  p  HealsofalselytoldBergeronthattherewerecurrentlynojobsin !l" progressthatcouldbeinspected. Hisbankrecordsreveal, "$ however,thatthreeemployeeswerepaidtheirwagesthatsameday.  t$& Duringthemeeting,BergerontoldPimentalthathewasgoingto  &p!( prepareareportsummarizingtheirmeetingandwouldmailitto '#* HartfordInsurance. BergerontestifiedthathetoldPimentalthat x)$, hewouldsendthelosscontrolreporttoHartfordInsurance,and $+t&. Brooksindicatedthatitwashisstandardpracticetotellthe  insuredthatthelosscontrolreportwouldbeforwardedtothe \ insurancecompany.BergeronkeptacopyofthereportinHartford X Insurance'sBostonbranch(wherehewasstationed)andsentacopy   tothecompany'sbranchinSanAntonio,Texas"thatissuesthe `  policyanddistributesallthepoliciesregardingtheassignedrisk  \  pool."# XFXXXF!#XFXX XFOnOctober5,1995,Bergeronalsomailedaletterto   Pimentalsummarizingtheirmeetingandstatingthat"[y]ourcompany d  continuestobidworkasasubcontractorinstallingreinforcement `  bar."     ` Pimentalagainrenewedthecompany'sworkers' h compensationinsuranceinMay1996,andHartfordInsuranceagain d mailedalettertoPimentaldetailingthecoverageandrepeating  thatthenatureofthecompany'sbusinesswas"concrete l construction."Laterthatsummer,Lawrencewrotealettertothe h Pimentalsrequestingcertaindocumentsthatwereneededtoperform  ayearendauditfortheMay1995toMay1996coverageperiod.The p  PimentalsneverprovidedLawrencewithanyoftherequested !l" documentation. "$  ` WhenLawrencemetwithLorettaPimentalfortheannual t$& auditonAugust9,1996,theonlydocumentationthatsheprovided  &p!( wasPimentalSteel'scheckbook;sheclaimedtohavebeenunawareof '#* therecordsLawrencehadrequestedandtohavelosttheletterhe x)$, hadsenttoher.Asaresult,Lawrencedeterminedthat_ _ Pimental_  $+t&. Steel'saccountwas"_ unauditable_ "andhisreporttoHartford  Insurancesimplyestimatedapayrollof$31,500basedonthe \ checkbookthatLorettahadprovided.Thisestimatewaslessthan X 20%of_ Pimental_ ԀSteel'sactualpayrollof$158,653forthattime   period.Consequently,the$19,374inpremiumsthatthe_ Pimentals_  `  werechargedwasalsolessthan20%ofwhattheyactuallyowed.   \   ` InNovember1996,Arthur_ Pimental_ ,perhapsconcernedthat   HartfordInsurancemightcancel_ Pimental_ ԀSteel'spolicyforfailure d  toproviderequesteddocumentation,submittedasecondapplication `  forworkers'compensationinsuranceto_ MWCRIB_ .Thisapplication   containedanewnameforthecompany;itwasnowcalled_ A.P.S._  h Products,Inc.,ratherthan_ Pimental_ ԀSteelErectors.(Wecontinue d toreferto_ Pimental_ 'scompanyas"_ Pimental_ ԀSteel"despitethis  namechange).# XFXXXFP#XFXX XF Theapplicationonceagaindescribedthecompany's l operationsas"[_ i]nstall_ Ԁsteelforconcretereinforcement,"and h statedthatitstotalpayrollwas$65,000_ per_ _ _ Ԁyearandthatit  employedonlytwoworkers.Duringtheprevioussixmonths,the p  _ Pimentals_ 'companyactuallypaidsalarytobetweenfourandseven !l" employeesonaweeklybasis,andthecompany'spayrollforthose "$ sixmonthstotaledapproximately$83,000.  t$&  ` _ MWCRIB_ ԀassignedtheinsuranceapplicationtoEmployers  &p!( InsuranceofWausau(WausauInsurance)andsentaletterto '#* _ Pimental_ Ԁinforminghimoftheassignmentandstatingthatthe x)$, estimatedpremiumwas$37,600. The_ Pimentals_ Ԁthenbeganapattern $+t&. _ ofdeceptionwithWausauInsurancesimilartothatemployedwith  HartfordInsurance.ArthurtoldauditorsforWausauInsurancethat \ A.P.S.Productsdidconcreterebarconstructionratherthanthe X steelerection,welding,ordeckingworkthatitactually   performed. Loretta,inturn,initiallyprovidedWausauInsurance `  withincompleterecordsthatsignificantlyunderrepresentedthe ( x  company'spayroll.  $   ` Aspartofablocktransferofpolicies,MWCRIB   reassignedthePimentals'insurancecoveragefromWausauInsurance ,|  toSaversProperty&CasualtyInsuranceCompany("Savers ( Insurance")inOctoberof1997. Usingthe1996MWCRIBapplication  aswellasWausau'smostrecentpolicy,SaversInsuranceinitially 0 calculateda$33,671yearlypremiumbasedona$65,000payrollin , concreterebar. Onceagain,thePimentalsmisrepresentedthe  natureoftheirbusinesstoSaversInsurance.ArthurPimentaltold 4 alosscontrolinspectorforSaversInsurancethathiscompanyonly 0 workedonconcreterebar. Further,thePimentalsfailedtorespond   toseveralinquiriesfromSaversInsuranceauditors,resultingin T!" SaversInsuranceusinga50%increasedpayrollfigureof$97,500 #P$ forthe1997to1998coverageperiod. Thiswasstillsubstantially $& smallerthantheactualpayrollfigureof$168,162.   X&!(  ` Intotal,fromOctober1993toAugust1998,thePimentals (T#* paidtheiremployeesapproximately$738,000insalary. The )%, insurancepremiumstheypaidduringthisperiodwerebasedona \+&. payrolloflessthanhalfthatamountabout$340,000.   Throughoutthetimeperiod,thePimentalspaidpremiumratesfor \ concreterebareventhoughtheirworkconsistedalmostentirelyof X steelerection,welding,anddecking.Becausedifferentpremium   ratesapplytoeachofthesethreeactivitiesandtherewaslittle `  evidenceconcerninghowmanyemployeehourswerededicatedtoeach  \  separateactivity,theextentofthemonetarybenefitthePimentals   receivedfrommisrepresentingtheirbusinessisunclear.  #  2      ׀ Ajury d  couldeasilyinferthatthepremiumswouldhavebeenhigherif `  Pimentalhadbeenhonestinwhathetoldhisinsurers.     II.ProceduralHistory  h k ` OnSeptember29,1999,ArthurandLorettaPimentalwere 0 eachindictedononeconspiracycount,18U.S.C.371,and , fourteencountsofmailfraud,18U.S.C.1341. Beforetrial,the  Pimentalsmovedtodismisstheindictment,claimingthatthe 4 governmenthadviolatedFed.R.Crim.P.6(e)whenitdisclosed, 0 afterearlierreceivingpermissionfromanotherjudgeonthecourt   todoso,grandjurymaterialstoaninvestigatorfortheInsurance 8!" FraudBureauofMassachusetts.Pimental,236F.Supp.2dat103. "4$ Inatrioofpretrialopinions,thedistrictcourtheldthatthere $& hadbeenaRule6(e)violation(despitethepriorapprovalofa <&!( differentjudgeofthecourt),butheldthattheviolationwas  harmlessbecausethegrandjurytestimonythatresultedfromthe \ transmittalofinformationtotheIFBinvestigatorwasnotcrucial X tothegrandjury'sdecisiontoindict.UnitedStatesv.Pimental,   204F.R.D.223(D.Mass.2001);# XFXXXF[#XFXX XFԀUnitedStatesv.Pimental,201 `  F.R.D.24(D.Mass.2001);# XFXXXFHq#XFXX XFUnitedStatesv.Pimental,199F.R.D.28  \  (D.Mass.2001)# XFXXXFq#XFXX XF.# XFXXXFr#XFXX XF    ` Thegovernmentvoluntarilydismissedthreeofthemail d  fraudcountsonSeptember16,2002,andthecaseproceededtotrial `  thenextday. Pimental,236F.Supp.2dat104.Aftersixdaysof   testimony,ajuryacquittedLorettaPimentalonallcountsand h acquittedArthurPimentalontheconspiracycountandnineofthe d elevenmailfraudcounts. Thetwomailfraudcountsonwhichthe  juryconvictedArthurPimentalwerebothbasedonmailingssentby  losscontrolinspectors. Thefirstcountwaspremisedonthe 4 October5,1994mailingfromWilliamBrookstoHartfordInsurance, 0 inwhichBrooksreportedthatArthurPimentalhadsaidthat   PimentalSteelErectorsonlyperformedconcreterebarwork. The 8!" secondcountwasbasedontheletterfromTimothyBergeronto "4$ ArthurPimentalsummarizingtheirmeetingandnotingthatPimental $& Steelwas,accordingtoPimental,involvedonlyinconcreterebar <&!( work.  '8#*  ` Afterthejuryreturneditsverdict,ArthurPimental )$, movedforajudgmentofacquittalpursuanttoFederalRuleof @+&. CriminalProcedure29(c).Healsorenewedhismotionfora  dismissaloftheindictment,arguingthatevidencepresentedat \ trialprovidedapreviouslyunavailablebasisforbelievingthat X theinformationdisclosedtotheIFBinvestigatorhadsubstantially   influencedthegrandjury'sdecisiontoindict. `   ` Thedistrictcourtheldthattherewassufficient  \  evidenceforthejurytofindtheexistenceofaschemetodefraud   andthatthemailingswerereasonablyforeseeable.Id.at109, d  110.ButitnonethelessgrantedPimental'sRule29motionbecause `  itconcludedthattherewasnotsufficientevidencethateither   mailingwasinfurtheranceofthefraudulentscheme.Id.Italso h declinedtoruleonPimental'srenewedmotionfordismissalofthe d indictmentbasedontheRule6(e)violation,findingthatthis  issuewasmootedbyitsgrantoftheRule29motion.Id.at112. l  ` Thegovernmentappealsthedistrictcourt'sgrantofthe h Rule29motion.ArthurPimental,inturn,crossappealsthedenial  ofhismotiontodismisstheindictmentfortheRule6(e) p  violation. !l"    III. TheRule29Motion  "$ U~ ` Ourreviewofthedistrictcourt'sRule29determinations $& isdenovo.UnitedStatesv.Moran,312F.3d480,487(1stCir. <&!( 2002).Ajudgmentofacquittalshouldonlybegrantedwhenthe '8#* evidenceandallreasonableinferencestobedrawnfromthe )$, evidence,bothtakeninthelightmostfavorabletothegovernment, @+&. areinsufficientforarationalfactfindertoconcludethatthe  prosecutionhasproven,beyondareasonabledoubt,eachofthe \ elementsoftheoffense.Id.;UnitedStatesv.Campbell,268F.3d X 1,6(1stCir.2001)."Underthisformulation,acourtconsiders   alltheevidence,directandcircumstantial,andresolvesall `  evidentiaryconflictsinfavoroftheverdict."Moran,312F.3dat  \  487# XFXXXFr#XFXX XF.    ` Todemonstrateaviolationofthemailfraudstatute,18 d  U.S.C.1341,theprosecutionmustprove"(1)thedevisingor `  attemptingtodeviseaschemeorartificetodefraud;(2)the   knowingandwillingparticipationintheschemewiththespecific h intenttodefraud;and(3)theuseofthemailsinfurtheranceof d thescheme."UnitedStatesv.McCann,366F.3d46,51(1stCir.  2004)(quotingUnitedStatesv.Montminy,936F.2d626,627(1st l Cir.1991)).# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀThegovernmentmustalsodemonstrate,inorderto h provecausation,thatthedefendantknew,orcouldhavereasonably  foreseen,that"theuseofthemails[would]followintheordinary p  courseofbusiness."Pereirav.UnitedStates,347U.S.1,9 !l" (1954);cf.# XFXXXFp#XFXX XFUnitedStatesv.FerminCastillo,829F.2d1194,1198 "$ 99(1stCir.1987)(interpretingwirefraudstatute).# XFXXXF#XFXX XF"Itisnot t$& necessarytoprovethatthedefendantpersonallyexecutedthe  &p!( mailings,butmerelythatthedefendant'causedthemailingby '#* doingsomeactfromwhichitisreasonablyforeseeablethatthe x)$, mailswillbeused.'"UnitedStatesv.Bruckman,874F.2d57,60 $+t&. (1stCir.1989)(quotingUnitedStatesv.GonzalezSanchez,825  F.2d572,588(1stCir.1987)).# XFXXXF#XFXX XF \  ` Therewaseasilysufficientevidenceforthejurytofind X theexistenceofaschemetodefraudandthattheuseofthemails   wasreasonablyforeseeable,asdiscussedbelow.Astothe"in `  furtheranceof"requirement,thedistrictcourterredinholding  \  thattherewasnotsufficientevidenceforthejurytofindthat   thetwolosscontrolinspectors'mailingswereinfurtheranceof d  thefraudulentscheme.Accordingly,wereversethegrantofthe `  Rule29motionandreinstatetheconvictions.# XFXXXF##XFXX XF   A.TheExistenceofaSchemetoDefraud# XFXXXF#XFXX XF h  ` Pimentalchallengesthedistrictcourt'sconclusionthat d therewassufficientevidenceofaschemetodefraud,hopingto  knockouttheconvictionsongroundsotherthanthosereliedupon l bythedistrictcourt. #  3      ׀First,hearguesthattheevidenceat h trialdidnotestablishthatPimentalSteel'semployeeswere  actuallycoveredbyworkers'compensationinsurancewhentheywere  performingsteelerection.Pimentalsaysthejuryhadnowayof \ eliminatingthepossibilitythatifhehadsubmittedaclaimon X behalfofaninjuredemployee,theinsurancecompanywouldhave   discoveredtheincorrectpremiumpaymentsandthusrefusedtopay `  theemployee.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀPimentaldoesnotcontestthedistrictcourt's  \  conclusionthat,asamatterofMassachusettslaw,theinsurance   companywouldbeobliged# XFXXXF#XFXX XFtocoverPimentalSteel'semployeesunder d  suchcircumstances. #  4      ׀Pimental,236F.Supp.2dat106(relyingon `  EmployersMutualLiabilityInsuranceCo.ofWisconsinv.Merrimac   MillsCo.,325Mass.676,681(1950)). Buthesaysthattherewas h noevidentiarybasisforthejurytoreachthisconclusion.From d thispremise,Pimentalarguesthatthejurycouldnothavefound  thattheinsurerssufferedanylossasaresultofPimental's l actions.Andthat,concludesPimental,meansthattherewas h insufficientevidenceforthejurytoconcludethatthereexisted  a"schemetodefraud." p  # XFXXXF#XFXX XF ` Pimental'sargumentgoestoofar.Inordertofinda !l" "schemetodefraud,"thejurysimplyhadtodeterminethatPimental "$ wasattemptingto"wrong[]oneinhispropertyrightsbydishonest t$& methodsorschemes."McNallyv.UnitedStates,483U.S.350,358  &p!( (1987)(quotingHammerschmidtv.UnitedStates,265U.S.182,188 '#* (1924)).# XFXXXFD#XFXX XFԀHere,therewasmorethansufficientevidenceforthe x)$, jurytoconcludethatPimentalliedaboutthenatureofhis  company'sworkinordertopaycheaperpremiumsonhisworkers' \ compensationinsurance.Thejuryeasilycouldhaveconcludedthat X Pimentalwasattemptingtodishonestlyminimizetheinsurance   premiumstothecompanythatheshouldhavebeenpayingunder `  Massachusettslaw.Thespeculativepossibilitythatifanemployee  \  hadfiledaclaimwithHartfordInsurance,itwouldhavediscovered   Pimental'sliesandrefusedtopaytheemployeeisirrelevant.To d  convict,thejuryneednothavedrawnanyadditionalconclusion.# XFXXXFX#XFXX XF `   ` Pimentalalsoarguesthattherewasinsufficientevidence   ofaschemetodefraudbecausetheevidencewasinconclusiveasto h whetherheultimatelypaidpremiumsthatwerelessthanwhathe d actuallyowed,forthereasonsdiscussedearlier.Butwhether  Pimentalactuallypaidmoreorlessinpremiumsthanheactually l owedgoesonlytothesuccessofhisfraudulentscheme,nottoits h existence.# XFXXXF͛#XFXX XFԀSeeUnitedStatesv.Martin,228F.3d1,16(1stCir.  2000)(successinschemeisnotneededtosupportmailfraud p  conviction).Inaddition,theargumentfailsonitsownterms.A !l" rationaljurycouldhavefoundthatPimental,becauseofhisown "$ actions,didnotinfacthavetheoptionofmakingvariablepremium t$& paymentsaccordingtotheamountoftimethathisworkersspent  &p!( performingdifferentjobtasks.Theevidenceattrialestablished '#* onlythat: x)$, Thepayrollofanindividualemployeemaybedividedand $+t&. allocatedtomorethanoneclassification,providedthe +J'/ entriesintheoriginalrecordsoftheinsureddisclose  anallocationofeachsuchindividualemployee'spayroll.  Anysuchoperationforwhichseparatepayrollrecordsare \ notmaintainedshallbeassignedtothehighestrated 2 classificationwhichappliestothejoborlocationwhere X theoperationisperformed. . Π(emphasisadded).TherewasextensivetestimonythatthePimentals   specificallychosenottokeeprecordsdocumentingthebreakdownof 6   theiremployees'workandthattheyrepeatedlymisledtheinsurance  2  companyconcerningtheirpayrollinordertopaylowerrates.A   reasonablejurycouldhaveeasilyfoundthatthePimentalsdidnot :  maintain"separatepayrollrecords"andhencethattheratethey 6 shouldhavepaid,forallpayrollhours,wastherateforsteel  erection.Thiswouldhavebeensignificantlymorethantheamount > theyactuallypaid. : u# XFXXXF3#XFXX XFB.The"InFurtheranceOf"Requirement   ` Inorderforamailingtobe"infurtherance"ofa B fraudulentscheme,it"mustbeforthepurposeofexecutingthe > scheme,"UnitedStatesv.Maze,414U.S.395,399400(1974)  (quotingKannv.UnitedStates,323U.S.88,94(1944))# XFXXXF#XFXX XF,or# XFXXXFp#XFXX XFԀ# XFXXXF#XFXX XF"part F ! oftheexecutionoftheschemeasconceivedbytheperpetratorat !B# thetime,"Schmuckv.UnitedStates,489U.S.705,715(1989).# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀThe #% mailing"neednotbeanessentialelementofthescheme";itcanbe J% ' merely"incidenttoanessentialpartofthescheme,"id.at710-11# XFXXXF#XFXX XF &F") (quotingPereira,347U.S.at8),# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀor"astepin[the]plot,"id.at (#+ 711(quotingBaddersv.UnitedStates,240U.S.391,394(1916)); N*%- seealso# XFXXXF|#XFXX XFMcCann,366F.3dat52.# XFXXXFh#XFXX XF +J'/ (i)CountTwoConvictionBrooks'sAccountDataReport   ` # XFXXXF̬#XFXX XFThemailingthatformedthebasisofCountTwo,onwhich \ thejuryconvictedPimental,wasBrooks'sOctober5,1994"Account X DataReport"toHartfordInsurance,whichrecountedthesubstance   ofhislosscontrolinterviewwithPimental.Inthatreport, `  BrookswrotethatPimentalhadsaidthathisbusinessinvolvedonly  \  rebarconstruction.    ` InSchmuck,theSupremeCourtaddressedthe"in d  furtheranceof"requirementwithrespecttoamailingofsome `  similaritytoBrooks'slosscontrolreport.Thedefendantin   Schmuckpurchasedusedcars,rolledbacktheirodometers,andthen h resoldthemtoretaildealerships,who,inturn,soldthemto d consumers.489U.S.at707.TheCourtheldthatthemailingofa  titleapplicationformfromthedealershipthatpurchasedSchmuck's l vehicletoastateagency,atthetimeofthedealership'ssaleof h thecartotheendconsumer,metthe"infurtheranceof"elementof  themailfraudstatute.Id.at71012.Incasesof"ongoing p  fraudulentventure[s],"reasonedtheCourt,mailingsthathelp !l" maintainaharmoniousrelationshipbetweentheperpetratorandthe "$ victimfurtherthefraudulentschemebyhelpingtoensureits t$& continuedsuccessinthefuture.Id.at71112.Eventhoughsuch  &p!( mailingswerenotabsolutelynecessaryfortheschemetosucceedin '#* theshortterm,theyallowedthedealershipswhopurchasedthecars x)$, fromSchmucktosellthemtotheultimateconsumerandthushelped $+t&. guaranteethatthedealershipswouldcontinuetopurchasecarsfrom  Schmuckinthefuture.Id.# XFXXXF#XFXX XF \  ` Likewise,themailingfromBrookstoHartfordInsurance X helpedPimentalmaintainhisongoingfraudulentventure# XFXXXFʵ#XFXX XFԀbyensuring   thathecontinuedtoreceiveinsurancecoverage.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀThejurywas `  entitledtoconcludethathadBrooksnevermailedhislosscontrol  \  report,HartfordInsurancewouldhaveterminateditsinsurance   coverageandPimental'sschemewouldhave,atleasttemporarily, d  cometoahalt.Indeed,Pimental'spolicywithHartfordInsurance `  wasthreatenedwithcancellationwhenheattemptedtoavoidaloss   controlinterviewinthesummerof1995byignoringrepeated h inquiriesfromBergeron.IfHartfordInsurancewerenottoreceive d acompletedlosscontrolreport,Bergeron'sletterwarned,  Pimental'sinsurancecoveragewouldbe"subject...to l cancellation." Arationaljurycouldhavereadilyfoundthatthe h losscontrolreportfromBrookstoHartfordInsurancefurthered 0 Pimental'sfraudulentschemebecauseitwasanecessarystepinthe   continuedrelationshipbetweenPimentalandhisvictim,Hartford 8!" Insurance.Cf.UnitedStatesv.Woodward,149F.3d46,6465(1st "4$ Cir.1998)(inongoingschemeinwhichlobbyistmadeillegal $& purchasesforapublicofficial,themailingofacreditcardbill <&!( tothelobbyistsatisfiedthe"infurtheranceof"requirement '8#*  becauseifthelobbyist"didnotpay[the]bills,hiscredit_ line )$, wouldhavebeenterminatedandthegratuitiescouldnothave  continued"). \   ` Thedistrictcourtreachedtheoppositeconclusionby X relyingonastatementinapostSchmuckFirstCircuitcase,United   Statesv._ Pacheco_ ԄOrtiz,889F.2d301,305(1stCir.1989)# XFXXXFI#XFXX XF,that `  theperpetrationofthefraudoritssubsequentcoverupmusthave  \  "dependedinsomewayon"themailing._ Pimental_ ,236F.Supp.2d   at108.# XFXXXFk#XFXX XFԀ# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀThecourtinterpretedthisformulationtoimposea"but d  for"testforthe"infurtheranceof"elementofmailfraudi.e. `  thatafraudulentscheme"dependson"amailingonlywhenbutfor   thatmailing,theschemecouldnothavesucceededorwouldhave h beendiscovered._  #  5      _ # XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀThedistrictcourtconcludedthat_ Pacheco_ Ԅ d Ortiz'suseof"dependson"meant"butfor"despitelanguagein  _ Pacheco_ ԄOrtizthatalsosaidthatitwasnotnecessarythateach l mailingguaranteethesuccessoftheschemeorevensignificantly h advanceitthatitonlyneedbecloselyrelatedtothescheme.   889F.2dat305. p   ` Applyingitsapproach,thedistrictcourtfoundthat   therewasnoevidencethat,absentthemailingofthelosscontrol \ report,Hartfordwouldnecessarilyhaveuncoveredtheschemeand X terminated_ Pimental_ 'scoverage.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀ# XFXXXF#XFXX XFAlthoughthecourtnotedthatit   waspossiblethatalosscontrolreportdescribingthe_ Pimentals_ ' `  businessassteelerection"mighthaveraisedaneyebrow"atthe  \  insurancecompany,itconcludedthatthegovernmentdidnotpresent   sufficientevidenceonthispoint;theevidencedidnotdemonstrate d  that"thejigwouldhavebeenup"hadBrooks'slosscontrolreport `  statedthatthe_ Pimentals_ 'businesswassteelerection.Id.# XFXXXF#XFXX XF    ` Thedistrictcourt'ssearchforadirect,butfor,link h betweenBrooks'smailingandthefraudulentelementof_ Pimental_ 's d schemetheclaimthathisbusinessinvolvedconcrete_ rebar_ Ԁand  notsteelerectionmisapprehendedthelawintwoways.First, l amailfraudconvictiondoesnotrequiretheexistenceofa# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀ"but h for"linkbetweenthemailingandthefraud,oritscoverup.Such  arulewouldharkenbacktotheoftrejectednotionthatthe p  mailingneedstobeconnectedwiththeessenceofthefraud.It !l" neednotbe,solongasitis"incidenttoanessentialelementof "$ thefraud."SeeSchmuckat71011.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀForinstance,inSchmuck t$& itselftherewasnobutforrelationshipbetweenthesuccessofthe  &p!( schemeandthemailingofthetitleapplicationform.Schmuck '#* couldhavecontinuedsellingcarsthathadbeentamperedwitheven x)$, ifthedealershipsthatboughtthosecarsdidnotmailthetitle $+t&. applicationforms.Themailingswerenonetheless"infurtherance"  oftheschemebecausetheycontributedtoitsoverallsuccessby \ makingitmorelikelythatdealershipswouldcomebacktoSchmuck X topurchasemorecars.    ` Similarly,mailingsthataredesignedto# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀ"lullthe `  victimsintoafalsesenseofsecurity,postponetheirultimate  \  complainttotheauthorities,andthereforemaketheapprehension   ofthedefendant[]lesslikelythanifnomailingshadtakenplace" d  aresufficientunderthestatute.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀUnitedStatesv.Lane,474U.S. `  438,451-52(1986)(quotingMaze,414U.S.at403)(emphasis   added);UnitedStatesv.Lopez,71F.3d954,96162(1stCir. h 1995).Preventingthedetectionofanongoingoracompleted d fraudulentschemeisnotcontingentonlullingthevictimintoa  falsesenseofsecurity.Instead,lullingthevictimintoafalse l senseofsecuritycontributestothepreventionofthescheme's h detectionbymakingdetectionoftheschemelesslikely.Thisis  sufficienttosatisfythe"infurtheranceof"requirementofthe p  mailfraudstatute.See,e.g.,McCann,366F.3dat53(lettersent !l" aftertheculminationofthefraudwasinfurtheranceoffraud "$ becauseit"servedtheimportantpurposeofdecreasingtheriskof t$& detection");Lopez,71F.3dat95657,961(faxsenttwoyears  &p!( afterculminationoffraudthatattemptedtoexplaincertain '#* documentsthatweresubmittedtocoveruptheillegalwithdrawal x)$, wasinfurtheranceoffraudulentschemeinwirefraud# XFXXXFe#XFXX XFconviction $+t&. becauseitmadedefendant'sapprehensionlesslikely);# XFXXXF#XFXX XFUnited  Statesv.Young,955F.2d99,108(1stCir.1992)(_ Breyer_ ,J.)# XFXXXF#XFXX XF \ (mailingsthatmisrepresenteddispositionofembezzledfundshelped X concealthefraudandwerethussufficienttomeetthe"in   furtheranceof"requirement).# XFXXXFO#XFXX XF `   ` Asecond,independent,problemwiththedistrictcourt's  \  analysisisthatitfocusedexclusivelyon_ Pimental_ 's   misrepresentationsindeterminingwhetherthemailingsfurthered d  hisoverallscheme.Infact,evenunderthedistrictcourt's `  overlystringentandincorrectbutfortest,thejurywouldhave   beenentitledtoconcludethat_ Pimental_ 'sschemedependedon h Brooks'smailing.Thereasonisthatthesuccessoftheschemedid d notsimplydependon_ Pimental_ Ԁlyingaboutthenatureofhis  business'soperationsitalsodepended,amongotherthings,on l themailingandprocessingoflosscontrolreports.# XFXXXFp#XFXX XFԀWerethose h reportsnotmailed,therewassignificantevidencethatHartford  Insurancewouldhavecancelledthe_ Pimentals_ 'coverage.O# XFXXXFH#XFXX XFneofthe p  centralpointsofSchmuckisthatamailingthatisitselfinnocent !l" andthatseemstoaccomplishaninnocentendcannonethelessbein "$ furtheranceofafraudulentscheme.# XFXXXFZ#XFXX XF t$& # XFXXXF#XFXX XF ` ii.CountFourConviction_ Bergeron_ 'sMailingto  &p!(  ` 󀀀_ Pimental_  &F")   ` ThesecondCountonwhich_ Pimental_ Ԁwasconvictedis (#+ premisedon_ Bergeron_ 'smailingto_ Pimental_ Ԁhimselfofasummaryof N*%- thelosscontrolinterview.Inthismailing,_ Bergeron_ Ԁstates, +J'/ basedonwhat_ Pimental_ Ԁsaidintheinterview,that_ Pimental_ 's  businesscontinuedtobetheinstallationofconcretereinforcement \ bar. X  ` _ Pimental_ Ԁarguesthatwhetherhereceivedasummaryofhis   meetingwith_ Bergeron_ ԀwasimmaterialtowhetherHartfordInsurance `  wouldcontinuetoprovidethe_ Pimentals_ Ԁwithinsurancefortheir  \  employeesattheincorrectrate._ Pimental_ Ԁalsoarguesthatlying   tolosscontrolinspectorsasopposedtolyingtoauditorswasnot d  anessentialpartofthescheme.Thiswasparticularlyso,says `  _ Pimental_ ,becausetheevidencewasthatthelosscontroldivision   ofHartfordInsurancewasentirelyseparatefromthedivisionthat h setpremiumsandinvestigatedfraud.Indeed,Brookswasnoteven d anemployeeofHartfordInsurance,butwasinsteadanindependent  contractor.# XFXXXF#XFXX XF l  ` Areasonablejuryeasilycouldhaveconcludedthat h _ Pimental_ Ԁneededtobeorthoughtheneededtobeconsistentinhis  liestorepresentativesoftheinsurer,regardlessofwhothe p  representativewas.Itisnothardtoinferthataninconsistent !l" reportfromalosscontrolinspectorcouldsomehowtriggeralarms "$ inthepremiumsettinggroup.Theharderquestioniswhyaletter t$& to_ Pimental_ ,recountinghisfraudulentstatements,wasin  &p!( furtheranceofthefraud.Thereareseveralresponses.Oneis '#* that_ Pimental_ Ԁnowknewthathisdeceptionoftheinspectorwas x)$, successfulhiscopyshowedthathislieswerebeingsenttothe $+t&. companyrecords.Thiscouldonlyencouragehiminthescheme.  Further,therewasanobviouspurposeto_ Bergeron_ Ԁsendingasummary \ ofhisreportto_ Pimental_ Ԁitallowed_ Pimental_ Ԁtocorrectany X inaccurateinformationonthereport._ Pimental_ Ԁchosenotto   correctthemisinformation,thusperpetuatingthefraudand `  demonstratingfurtherhisfraudulentintent.SeeUnitedStatesv.  \  Morrow,39F.3d1228,123637(1stCir.1994)(ininsurancefraud   scheme,theinsurancecompany'smailingtotheinsured d  acknowledgingthatithadreceivedthefraudulentclaimwas,under `  theSchmuckformulation,"'incidental'toanessentialelementin   thescheme"). h # XFXXXF#XFXX XFC.Causation:WeretheMailingsReasonablyForeseeable?# XFXXXF#XFXX XF d  ` _ Pimental_ Ԁarguesthattherewasinsufficientevidencefor  thejurytoconcludethathe"caused"eitherofthemailingsat l issuebecauseneitherofthemwasreasonablyforeseeable.See h Pereira,347U.S.at89.Therewasnoevidence,accordingto  _ Pimental_ ,ofa"courseofbusiness"betweenhimselfandhis p  insurersthatwouldhaveledareasonablepersontohave !l" anticipatedeitherofthemailingsthatformedthebasisforhis "$ convictions.HepointstoevidencethatBrookscouldnotrecall t$& evertelling_ Pimental_ Ԁthatthelosscontrolreportwouldbemailed  &p!( toHartfordInsurance.Similarly,_ Bergeron_ Ԁtestifiedonlythathe '#* told_ Pimental_ Ԁthathewouldsendthelosscontrolreportto x)$, Hartford,notthathewouldsenditto_ Pimental_ Ԁhimself.Allof $+t&. _ this,concludesPimental,meanstherewasnowaythathecould  reasonablyforeseethateitherBrooks'sorBergeron'sletterswould \ everbewrittenormailed. X  ` Pimental'sargumentsarepremisedonanincorrect   understandingofthelaw.Asthedistrictcourtcorrectlyheld,it `  issimplythe"useofthemails"inthecourseoftheschemerather  \  thantheparticularmailingatissuethatmustbereasonably   foreseeableforthecausationelementofamailfraudoffensetobe d  satisfied. #  6      ׀SeeMorrow,39F.3dat1237(allthatisrequiredto `  showcausationisthatthedefendant"participatedinacrimein   whichitwasforeseeable...thatthemailswouldbeused"and h thatwassatisfiedwheredefendant"admittedattrialthatheknew d thatautomobileinsuranceclaimsareprocessedinpartthroughthe  useofthemails");Bruckman,874F.2dat60("[T]hecausation  elementismetaslongassomeuseofthemailswasreasonablyto \ beanticipatedinthecourseofthescheme.");# XFXXXF:#XFXX XFFerminCastillo,829 X F.2dat1198("Aslongassomeuseoftheinstrumentalityinthe   courseoftheendeavorwasreasonablytobeanticipated,the `  causationrequirementismet.");seealsoUnitedStatesv.  \  Bortnovsky,879F.2d30,3839(2dCir.1989)(notingthatthe   causationelementofmailfraud"hasbeensoliberallyconstruedas d  tosuggestthatitrequiresonlythattheuseofthemailitself, `  ratherthanaparticularmailing,bereasonablyforeseeable"and   endorsingthatview).# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀ h # XFXXXF#XFXX XF ` Theprinciplethatitistheuseofthemails(rather d thanthespecificmailingthatischarged)thatmustbereasonably  foreseeableasaresultoftheschemeisaffirmedbyoneofthe l primarycasesuponwhichPimentalrelies. #  7      ׀InUnitedStatesv. h Walters,997F.2d1219(7thCir.1993),thecourtheldthatthere  wasinsufficientevidenceonthecausationelementofamailfraud \ offensebecausetheevidencedidnotestablish"that[the X defendant]conceivedaschemeinwhichmailingsplayedarole."   Id.at1222.Ratherthanfocusonthepredictabilityofspecific `  mailingsintheindictment,theWalterscourtthuspremisedits  \  analysisonthequestionofwhethertheuseofthemails,asa   generalmatter,wasaforeseeablecomponentoftheschemeto d  defraud# XFXXXF #XFXX XF.Seeid.at122324.Indeed,inthecourseofits `  analysis,thecourtnotedthatinsurancefraudisthe"paradigm"   caseinwhichtheuseofthemailsisreasonablyforeseeable h becausethepaymentandsubmissionofinsuranceclaimstypically d involvesmailingsbetweentheinsurancecompany'sagentsandthe  insured# XFXXXF#XFXX XF.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀSeeid.at1223.Sohere. l   IV.Pimental'sCrossAppeal  h EӀ# XFXXXF#XFXX XF ` Duringitspreliminaryinvestigationsinthiscase,the 0 U.S.Attorney'sofficefiledanexpartemotionwiththedistrict   courtseekingpermission,# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀonthebasisoftheexceptiontogrand 8!" jurysecrecy# XFXXXF#XFXX XF,todisclosegrandjurymaterialstoinvestigatorsand "4$ analystsoftheIFB# XFXXXFP#XFXX XF.Theexceptionallowsdisclosureofgrandjury $& materialsto"anygovernmentpersonnel--includingthoseofa <&!( stateorstatesubdivision"whensuchdisclosureisnecessaryto '8#* prosecuteacriminalcase.Fed.R.Crim.P.6(e)(3)(A)(ii).# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀThe )$, districtcourtmotionjudge,whowasnotthetrialjudge,granted  themotionwithoutopinion.Nodisclosurewasmadebythe \ prosecutorwithoutcourtpermission.# XFXXXF\ #XFXX XF X  ` Subsequently,duringpretrialdiscovery,Pimentalmoved   todismisstheindictment,arguingthatthegovernmenthadviolated `  Rule6(e)whenitdisclosedtoScottFaragi,anIFBinvestigator  \  wholatertestifiedbeforethegrandjury,Pimental'sbankrecords   andothermaterialthathadbeenobtainedthroughthegrandjury's d  subpoenapowers. PimentalarguedthatIFBagentssuchasFaragi `  werenot"governmentpersonnel"withinthemeaningofRule   6(e)(3)(A)(ii),andthustheexceptiontograndjurysecrecywas h notapplicableandtheearlierdistrictcourtorderwaswrong. d  ` Inresponse,thetrialcourtheldthatIFBinvestigators  cannotbe"governmentpersonnel"withinthemeaningofRule6(e), l andthusthattheearlierrulingallowingtheprosecutorto h disclosegrandjurymaterialstoIFBinvestigatorswasinerror.  Pimental,199F.R.D.at3337(D.Mass.2001);Pimental,201F.R.D. p  at2526# XFXXXF #XFXX XF.Itdidnotholdthatbecausethedisclosurehadbeen !l" authorizedbythecourt,therecouldbenodismissalofthe "$ indictment.Rather,thedistrictcourtrefusedtodismiss t$& Pimental'sindictmentbecausethe"error"didnotsubstantially  &p!( affectthegrandjury'sdecisiontoindict,andthusitwas '#*  harmless.Pimental,204F.R.D.at22728.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀ# XFXXXF#XFXX XF x)$, # XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀ# XFXXXFX#XFXX XF ` Pimentalnowchallengesthispretrialdenialofhis   motiontodismisstheindictment.Healsoasksthiscourtto \ considerhisposttrialrenewalofthatmotion,whichthedistrict X courtfoundtobemootduetoitsgrantofPimental'sRule29   motion. `   ` Weconcludethatthefirstdistrictcourt'simplicit  \  conclusionthatIFBagentsare"governmentpersonnelincluding   those# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀofastateorstatesubdivision"withinthemeaningofRule d  6(e)(3)(A)(ii)was,onthesefacts,noterror.Wedonotholdthat `  allIFBemployees,regardlessofthecircumstances,aregovernment   personnel,butonlythatherethatdecisionwascorrect.# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀ# XFXXXF#XFXX XFWethus h affirmonalternategroundsthedenialofPimental'smotionto d dismisstheindictment,whichdisposesofhisposttrialrenewalof  themotion.b #  8      ׀SeeBonanov.E.CaribbeanAirlineCorp.,365F.3d l 81,86(1stCir.2004)("Wearenotconfinedtothelowercourt's h rationale,butmayaffirmajudgmentonanyindependentgroundmade  manifestbytherecord."). p  (A)GrandJurySecrecyandtheLimitedExceptionforGovernment !l" 󀀀Personnel.# XFXXXF#XFXX XF !B# # XFXXXF#?XFXX XFԀ# XFXXXFT#XFXX XF ` Federalgrandjuriesareresponsibleforinvestigating #% criminalallegationswhilesimultaneouslyshieldinginnocent J% ' citizensfromunfoundedaccusationsofcriminalconduct.See &F") Branzburgv.Hayes,408U.S.665,68687&n.23(1972).These  sometimescompetingroles"underlie[]the'longestablishedpolicy \ thatmaintainsthesecrecyofthegrandjuryproceedingsinthe X federalcourts.'"UnitedStatesv.SellsEng'g,Inc.,463U.S.   418,424(1983)(quotingUnitedStatesv.Procter&GambleCo.,356 `  U.S.677,681(1958)).Grandjurysecrecyfacilitatesthe  \  investigationofcriminalchargesbyassuringpotentialwitnesses   thattheirtestimonywillnotbecomepublicknowledge,thus d  encouragingthemtotestifyfreelyandlimitingthepotentialthat `  theywillbeimproperlyinfluencedbythoseunderinvestigation.   Seeid.Atthesametime,itensures"thatpersonswhoareaccused h butexoneratedbythegrandjurywillnotbehelduptopublic d ridicule."Id.(quotingDouglasOilCo.v.PetrolStopsNorthwest,  441U.S.211,219(1979)). l  ` Thespecificdimensionsofthegrandjurysecrecy h requirementsarecodifiedinFed.R.Crim.P.6(e).ThatRule  prohibitscertainpeopleincludinggrandjurors,interpreters, p  and,ofparticularrelevancehere,"attorney[s]forthegovernment" !l" Є# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀfromdisclosing"amatteroccurringbeforethegrandjury." "$ # XFXXXF"#XFXX XFFed.R.Crim.P.6(e)(2)(b).Rule6(e)alsocontainscertain t$& exceptionstothegeneralsecrecyrequirement.# XFXXXF##XFXX XFԀThefirstpertinent  &p!( exceptionatissueinthiscase,undersubpart(3)(A)(ii),allows '#* "[d]isclosureofagrand-jurymatter"to"anygovernmentpersonnel x)$, --includingthoseofastateorstatesubdivisionorofan_ Indian $+t&. tribe--thatanattorneyforthegovernmentconsidersnecessaryto  assistinperformingthatattorney'sdutytoenforcefederal \ criminallaw."Fed.R._ Crim_ .P.6(e)(3)(A)(ii).# XFXXXFF$#XFXX XFThesecond,under X 6(e)(3)(E),empowersadistrictcourttoauthorizedisclosurein   certainsituations.Wethinkitimplicitthatadistrictcourtmay `  alsoactinamotiontoauthorizedisclosureundersubpart3(A).# XFXXXF&#XFXX XF  \  # XFXXXF(#XFXX XF(B)The_ IFB_ Ԁandthe"PlainMeaning"of"GovernmentPersonnel."   ( ` # XFXXXFl(#XFXX XFThe_ IFB_ Ԁisa"quasigovernmentalentity,"InreJustices d  oftheSuperiorCourt,218F.3d11,13(1stCir.2000)# XFXXXF\)#XFXX XF,that `  investigatesallegationsoffraudulentinsurancetransactions.   Commonwealthv.Ellis,429Mass.362,365(1999).# XFXXXFG*#XFXX XFԀItscreationwas h # XFXXXF;+#XFXX XFauthorizedbyMassachusettsstatute,St.1996,c.427,13, #  9      ׀and d carriedoutbytwovoluntaryassociationsofMassachusetts  insurancecarriers# XFXXXF+#XFXX XF,the_ MWCRIB_ ԀandtheAutomobileInsuranceBureau l (_ AIB_ ),whicharethemselveslicensedunderMassachusettslaw# XFXXXF,#XFXX XF.See# XFXXXF-#XFXX XF h id.at13;Mass.Gen.Lawsch.175A8(licensing_ AIB_ );Mass.Gen.  Lawsch.15252C(licensing_ MWCRIB_ ).SeegenerallyEllis,429 p  Mass.at365# XFXXXF@.#XFXX XF.Theauthorizingstatuterequiresthatthe_ MWCRIB_ Ԁand !l" _ AIB_ Ԁeachfundhalfofthe_ IFB_ 'sbudget,13(c),andeachprovide "$ the_ IFB_ Ԁwithfiveofitsfifteen# XFXXXF/#XFXX XFBoardmembers,13(a).The t$& remainingfive_ IFB_ ԀBoardmembersareMassachusettspublic  &p!( _ officials.13(a).Underthe# XFXXXF91#XFXX XFԀstatutoryscheme,everyinsurer  "havingreasontobelievethataninsurancetransactionis \ fraudulent"mustadvisetheIFBofitssuspicions.# XFXXXFO2#XFXX XF13(e).The X IFB,inturn,isrequiredtoreviewthosecasesandinvestigate   furtherwhennecessary.13(f).WheretheIFB'sexecutive `  director"issatisfiedthatamaterialfraud,deceit,or  \  intentionalmisrepresentationhasbeencommittedinaninsurance   transaction,"hemust"referthemattertotheattorneygeneral, d  theappropriatedistrictattorneyortheUnitedStatesattorney." `  13(h)(emphasisadded).# XFXXXFN3#XFXX XF    ` Thetrialcourtrejectedthemotioncourt'simplicit h holding,concludingthatIFBemployeescannotbe"government d personnel,"basedprimarilyona"plainmeaning"readingofthe  term.# XFXXXF5#XFXX XFԀEmphasizingthattheIFB'sfundingcomesentirelyfromtwo l privateassociationsofinsurancecompaniesandthatthemajority h ofitsBoardarenotpublicofficials,thecourtconcludedthat  "theIFBinhabitsaregionoftheprivate/publicspectrumthatis p  muchclosertoapurelyprivateagency."SeePimental,199F.R.D. !l" at33.# XFXXXF%7#XFXX XF "$  ` Asaninitialmatter,theremaywellbeinstancesin t$& whichanentity(oratleastsomeofitsemployees)isconsidered  &p!( governmentalforaparticularpurposedespitethefactthatitis '#* bothcontrolledandfinancedbyprivateindividuals.# XFXXXF!9#XFXX XFEven x)$, assumingthattheIFBiscompletelycontrolledandfinancedby $+t&. privateinsurancecompanies,thatdoesnotnecessarilymeanthat  itsemployeescannotbegovernmentpersonnelforpurposesofRule \ 6(e). X  ` Here,thedistrictcourt'scharacterizationoftheIFBas   entirelyfundedandcontrolledbyprivateentitieswasincorrect. `  WhileitistruethattheIFB'sfundingcomesentirelyfromMWCRIB  \  andAIB,twoprivateassociationsofinsurancecompanies,bothof   thoseassociationsarerequiredbyMassachusettslawtoprovide d  thatfunding.Seest.1996,c.427,13(c);seealsoEllis,429 `  Mass.at373n.16.Thisisnotaninstanceinwhichprivate   entitieshavevoluntarilychosentospendtheirresourceson h investigativepersonnel.Cf.UnitedStatesv.Tager,638F.2d167, d 168(10thCir.1980)(whereinsurancecompaniesvoluntarilychose  tofundanentitytoinvestigateinsurancefraudandcompletely l controlledthescopeofitsactions,employeesoftheentitywere h not"governmentpersonnel"withinthemeaningofRule  6(e)(3)(A)(ii)). #  10      # XFXXXF:#XFXX XFԀIfanything,theIFB'sfundingismoreakinto p  astatemandatedtaxoninsurancecompaniesthanavoluntary  expenditurebyprivateentities.Cf.Kellerv.StateBarofCal., \ 496U.S.1,911(themandatorychargingofduesbytheCalifornia X BarAssociationwasstateactionthatimplicatedFirstAmendment   concerns).Indeed,theSupremeJudicialCourt,thefinalarbiter `  onMassachusettslaw,hasexplicitlyfoundthat"insurance  \  companies[cannot]controlthe[IFB]bywithdrawingfinancial   support"evenweretheytoattempttoforegothebenefitsof d  membershipintheMWCRIBandAIB.Ifinsurerswithdrewfromthese `  organizations,"theLegislaturecouldeasilyamendthestatuteto   baseassessmentsonpremiumswrittenoronsomeotherstandard." h Ellis,429Mass.at373.# XFXXXF@#XFXX XF d Ѐ ` Thetrialcourt'sanalysisalsounderestimatesthefull  extentofthecontrolthattheCommonwealthexercisesovertheIFB. l AlthoughonlyathirdoftheIFB'sboardmembersarepublic h officials,theIFB'spurpose,organizationalscheme,andbasic  operationsarealldictatedbystatute.AndwhiletheIFB'sday p  todayadministrationwithintheframeworkis,inlargepart, !l" controlledbyindividualswhoarenotpublicofficials,itisalso "$ subjecttotheconstantoversightoftheMassachusettslegislature, t$& towhichtheIFBmustsubmitareporteverysixmonths.13(j).  &p!(  ` Inaddition,theIFBwasconceivedofandauthorizedby '#* statuteaspartofalargerschemetocurbinsurancefraud,a x)$, fOY' f f  matterofsignificantpublicconcern,bothatthestatelevel,see  Ellis,429Mass.at365,# XFXXXFQE#XFXX XFԀandnationally,seeUnitedStatesv.Hurn, \ 368F.3d1359(11thCir.2004)(affirmingfederalconvictionfor X workers'compensationfraud);UnitedStatesv.Fore,169F.3d104   (2dCir.1999)(same).TheIFBwasalsogivensignificantpowers `  toachievethisgoal,includingaccesstovariousstaterecords  \  thatarenotnormallyavailabletoprivateentitiesandtheright   toreviewallsuspicionsoffraudwithintheinsurancecompanies. d  Seest.1996,c.427,13(d)&(e).Italsohastheaffirmative `  obligationtoreportsuspicionsoffraudwhentheyaresufficiently   corroborated.13(h).Massachusettschosetospecifythatthose h suspicionsmaybereportedtofederalprosecutors.# XFXXXFJ#XFXX XF d # XFXXXFN#XFXX XF ` T# XFXXXFZN#XFXX XFheIFBstraddlesthelinebetweenagovernmentanda  privateentity,havingattributesofeach.Assuch,thetextof l theRule6(e)(3)(A)(ii)itselfprovideslittleguidanceonwhether h IFBemployeescanbecharacterizedas"governmentpersonnel"within  themeaningoftheRule.# XFXXXFN#XFXX XFNeitherthisCourtnoranyotherfederal p  circuitcourt #  11      ׀haspreviouslyaddressedwhetherIFBemployees,or !l" similarquasistategovernmentemployees,fallwithintheterm "$ "governmentpersonnel"inRule6(e)(3)(A)(ii). #  12      ׀Giventhelackof t$& eitheracleartextualresolutionorofcontrollingauthority,we  turntothehistoryoftheRuleanditspurposeinallowing \ disclosureonlyto"governmentpersonnel"butnotothers. X # XFXXXFRP#XFXX XF(C)HistoryandPurposeoftheExceptiontoGrandJurySecrecyin   ЀRule6(e)(3)(A)(ii).   S ` Before1977,Rule6(e)didnotpermitthedisclosureof 6   grandjurymaterialstogovernmentemployeeswhowerenot  2  attorneys.SellsEng'g,463U.S.at436.Overtime,thelackof   suchaprovisionbecame"somethingofaprobleminpractice, :  becauseJusticeDepartmentattorneysfoundthattheyoftenneeded 6 activeassistancefromoutsidepersonnelnotonlyinvestigators  fromtheFBI,IRS,andotherlawenforcementagencies,butalso > accountants,handwritingexperts,andotherpersonswithspecial : skills."Id.Inresponsetothisconcern,theAdvisoryCommittee  onRulessuggestedamendingRule6(e)toallowdisclosuretonon B attorneygovernmentpersonnel.Seeid.at43637.Although > Congressheatedlydebatedtheproposedamendmentandinitially  votedtodisapproveit,concernfocusedprincipallyontheprospect F ! thatgrandjurymaterialswouldbeusedtopursuecivil,rather !B# thancriminal,matters.Seeid.at437.Theprincipleofgrand #% jurysecrecywouldbeseverelycompromised,theobjectionwent,if J% ' governmentagenciessuchastheIRScouldindirectlyusematerials &F") collectedbythegrandjurytohelpprosecuteacivilcaseagainst  anaccused.Seeid.Mostlawmakers,itappears,agreedwiththe \ basicprinciplethatgrandjurymaterials"shouldbeavailableto X 'everylegitimatememberof[the]team'conductingthecriminal   investigation."Id.at439(quotingthetestimonyofActingDeputy `  AttorneyGeneralRichardThornburgh,testifyingbeforetheHouseon  \  behalfoftheJusticeDepartment).   Ѐ ` Preciselywhowasa"legitimatemember"ofthe d  prosecutionteamwasalsoasubjectofsomediscussion: `  [Rep.JamesMann:]Alongthesameline,theruleseemsto   restricttootherGovernmentpersonneltheexperts--and  Iwillusethattermloosely--thattheattorneyforthe h Governmentmaycallupon.Wehaveaprettybig > Governmentwithalotofexperts,butoncertainmatters d theremaynotbeagovernmentalemployeewhoisexpertin : thatfield.Isityourintentionnottopermitthe  prosecutortocallinanastrologerorastronomer,for  example? l ЀProfessorLaFave[Reporter,AdvisoryCommitteeon h CriminalRules# XFXXXFkS#XFXX XF]:Yes;thatiscorrect.Apparently > representativesoftheJusticedepartmentwhomwetalked  toaboutthisparticularproblemdidnotseemtothink  thatwasaproblem,inotherwords,thattherewasan p  occasionwhentheywouldneedanexpertandcouldn'tfind F ! theastrologersomeplaceintheFederalGovernment. !l" \]]ProposedAmendmentstotheFederalRulesofCriminalProcedure: "$ HearingBeforetheHouseSubcomm.onCriminalJusticeoftheHouse t$& Comm.ontheJudiciary,95thCong.92(Feb.24,1977).TheRule's  &p!( limitationofdisclosureto"governmentpersonnel"thusreflected '#*  thebasicbeliefthatanyneededexpertiseonaparticularcriminal x)$, mattercouldbefoundwithintheconfinesofthefederal  government.# XFXXXF`#XFXX XF \   ` Asitturnedout,federalprosecutorscouldnotalways X findthenecessaryexpertisewithinthefederalgovernmentto   prosecuteacase.Insomeinstances,federalprosecutors `  temporarilyhiredoutsideexpertstoassistintheprosecutionof  \  acase.Recognizingtheimportofsharinggrandjurymaterials   withsuchtemporaryemployees,twocircuitcourtsheldthatsuch d  temporaryemployeeswereindeed"governmentpersonnel"withinthe `  meaningoftheRule6(e)(3)(A)(ii).UnitedStatesv.Anderson,778   F.2d602,605(10thCir.1985)(anexpertwitnessontrustlaw); h # XFXXXFbd#XFXX XFUnitedStatesv.Lartey,716F.2d955,96364(2dCir.1983)(# XFXXXFg#XFXX XFa d retiredI.R.S.agent).# XFXXXFTh#XFXX XFԀFederalprosecutorsalsooccasionally  soughttheassistanceofstateandlocalemployees,attemptingto l sharesecretgrandjurymaterialswiththem.Thedistrictcourts' h responsestosucheffortsweremoremixed.CompareInreGrand  JuryProceedings,445F.Supp.349,350(D.R.I.1978)(stateand p  localpersonnelarenotwithintheexceptionforgovernment !l" personnelintheRule);withInre1979GrandJuryProceedings,479 "$ F.Supp.93,9596(E.D.N.Y.1979)(stateandlocalpersonnel t$& included).# XFXXXFh#XFXX XF  &p!(  ` Partiallyinresponse,Rule6(e)(3)(A)(ii)wasamendedin '#* 1985toincludeexpresslypersonnel"ofastateorstate x)$, subdivision"withintheterm"governmentpersonnel."SeeFed.R. $+t&. Crim.P.Rule6,advisorycommittee'snoteson1985amendments.# XFXXXFk#XFXX XFԀ  "Itisclearlydesirable,"theCommitteewrote,"thatfederaland \ stateauthoritiescooperate,astheyoftendo"incomplexcases X suchas"majorfraudcases"andthatfederalprosecutorshave   accessto"theassistanceofstatelawenforcementpersonnel,which `  couldbeuniquelybeneficial."Id.# XFXXXFKm#XFXX XFԀAlthoughincreaseddisclosure  \  wasobviouslyintensionwiththegeneralruleofgrandjury   secrecy,theCommittee"emphasizedthatthedisclosurepermittedis d  limited":itispermissibleonly"inconnectionwiththeattorney `  forthegovernment's'dutytoenforcecriminallaw'andonlyto   thosepersonnel'deemednecessary...toassist'inthe h performanceofthatduty."Id. d  ` Twoimportantthemes,forourpurposes,canbediscerned  fromthislegislativehistory.First,akeypurposeofRule l 6(e)(3)(A)(ii)istofacilitatecooperationbetweenfederal h prosecutorsandstatepersonnel,whooftenareuniquelysituatedto  assistintheinvestigationandprosecutionoffederalcriminal p  cases.Whencourtdecisionstendedtolimitthepotentialforsuch !l" cooperationbecauseofconcernsthatstateofficials,whoarenot "$ underthecontrolofthefederalgovernment,couldnotbeentrusted t$& withgrandjurymaterials,theywereexplicitlyoverruledby  &p!( Congress.Thus,Congressmadeaconsciousdecisiontoentrust '#* certainstate,aswellasfederal,personnelwithinformation x)$, concerningmattersbeforeagrandjuryundercertainconditions.# XFXXXF!o#XFXX XFԀ $+t&. Second,aprimarysafeguardforprotectingthecountervailing  interestinthesecrecyofgrandjuryproceedingsisthe \ requirementthatsuchdisclosuremustbenecessaryforthe X enforcementofcriminallaw.AlthoughtheRule'slimitationto   "governmentpersonnel"alsohelpstoassurethesecrecyofgrand `  juryproceedings,thatlimitwasnotcontemplatedbyeither  \  Congressin1977ortheAdvisoryCommitteein1985astheprimary   mechanismfordoingso.# XFXXXFSu#XFXX XFԀ d   ` ThesethemesconvinceusthattheexceptioninRule `  6(e)(3)(A)(ii)maycovertheuniquequasigovernmental   investigatorsoftheIFB,dependingonthefactsofthesituation. h  ` InmanyinstancesofinsurancefraudinMassachusetts, d IFBinvestigators,ratherthanmembersofamoreclassicstatelaw  enforcementagency,willbetheindividualswhowillhavethemost l indepthknowledgeofthatfraud.Thisisadirectresultofthe h wayinwhichMassachusettshaschosentostructureits  investigationsintosuchmatters.# XFXXXFx#XFXX XFԀCongressclearlydesiredthat p  Rule6(e)(3)(A)(ii)wouldallowfederalprosecutorstotake !l" advantageofthestate'sinvestigativeprocesseswhensuch "$ cooperationwasnecessarytoprosecutefederalcrimessuchasmail t$& fraud.# XFXXXF{#XFXX XF  &p!(  ` Additionally,byspecificallyincludingstatepersonnel '#* inRule6(e)(3)(A)(ii),Congresschosetotruststateofficials x)$, thatthestateitselfhadentrustedwiththeinvestigationof $+t&. criminalmatters.Here,Massachusettshasgiventhehybrid  private/publicIFBsignificantpowersandresponsibilities.Inthe \ courseoftheirinitialinvestigations,IFBinvestigatorshave X accesstononpublicinformationthatisnotnormallyavailableto   privateinvestigators.13(d).Ifthatinvestigationleadsthe `  IFBexecutivedirectortoreferthecasetothe# XFXXXF|#XFXX XFAttorneyGeneral's  \  Office,theIFBinvestigatorinitiallyassignedtothecase   providessignificantsupporttotheprosecutingattorney.See d  Commonwealthv.Harwood,432Mass.290,299(2000)("[I]thasbeen `  customaryforprincipalinvestigatorsfromtheIFBtoprovide   ongoinginvestigatorysupportfortheAttorneyGeneral'ssubsequent h inquiries.").Moreover,instatecriminalprosecutionsthestate d considersIFBagentstobeassistantstoprosecutors:"forthe  purposesofpreservingpotentiallyexculpatoryevidence,"theIFB l is"underthegeneralsupervisoryumbrellaoftheofficeofthe h prosecutor."Id.at300.Consequently,exculpatoryevidencethat  IFBinvestigatorslosecanbeattributedtotheprosecution.Id. p   ` Wedonotknowthemanyfactualvariationsthatcouldbe !l" presentedbyuseofIFBpersonnelonfederalcriminalinvestigative "$ teams;wedonotholdthatallIFBpersonnelarequalifiedasa t$& matterofstatus.Becausetheinterestinthesecrecyofgrand  &p!( juryproceedingsisintense,thisisnotanareaforcategorical '#*  approvalstiedtolabels.Themerefactthatapersonworksfor x)$, theIFBdoesnotmeanthatheorshefitsthedefinitionfor  governmentpersonnelwithinRule6(e)(3)(A)(ii). \   ` Forthisreason,wedonotconsiderthattheprosecution X hasselfexecutingpowersunderRule6(e)(3)(A)(ii)# XFXXXF#XFXX XFԀsimplyto   designateIFBpersonnelasrecipientsofgrandjurymaterial. `  Rather,theprosecutormustseekcourtauthorizationwherequasi  \  governmentalagenciessuchastheIFBareinvolvedandmakea   functionalshowingthattheindividualinvolvediswithintheRule. d  Inthepast,theOfficeoftheU.S.AttorneyforMassachusettshas `  chosentoseekcourtauthorizationfirst,onacasebycasebasis   wheneveritwishesIFBpersonneltobeinvolved.Itshould h continuetodoso. d   V.   ܉ ` Thedistrictcourt'sgrantoftheRule29motionis   reversed .Thedenialofthemotiontodismisstheindictmentis 4  affirmed andtherenewalofthatmotionis denied .Thecaseis L remandedtothedistrictcourtforsentencing.   # XFXXXF&#AFXXdXdA