TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:
>> A look at the internet as it stands now, in 2005, from a compilation
>> originally prepared by CNN.com:
>> Chain letters
>> "Forward this message to 10 people and DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN!" the
>> writer implores. Messages like these have been pouring into inboxes since
>> the inception of e-mail -- taking the old-fashioned chain letter from the
>> post office to cyberspace. Chain letters are a particularly annoying form of
>> spam because they often come from friends and promise negative consequences
>> for not forwarding the message (bad luck or a lost chance at riches, for >> example).
>> Choosing to forward a message, however, could get you in trouble. Many
>> people don't know it is illegal to start or forward an e-mail chain letter
>> that promises any kind of return. Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for
>> mail fraud.
> 'Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for mail fraud.'
> ???
> How can that possibly be correct?
In the United States, that statement _is_ correct.
First of all, it suggests that the
> post office has some sort of jurisdiction over e-mail, which it
> clearly does not (mail fraud is investigated by postal
> inspectors).
You are, in fact, *WRONG* on that count. The post office _does_ have jurisdiction over certain activities conducted by means other than postal mail.
The USPIS handles investigation/enforcement of 18 USC 1342.
Which includes frauds that _induce_ victims to send money _via_the_mails_.
If the 'scheme to defraud' involves the use of the postal mail system
*in*any*way* then the crime of 'mail fraud' applies.
But secondly, '_anyone_ doing so...' is preposterously Americano-centric.
The exact same jurisdictional rule (post office has jurisdiction (albeit not necessarily 'exclusive' jurisdiction) over anything that uses mails as _any_ part of the fraud) applies in Canada, the U.K., Germany, France, Japan, Australia, (those places I have specific knowledge of) and most of the rest of the world. Even Nigeria.