by James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Katherine R. Goldstein, Michael A. Asaro, and Parvin Daphne Moyne

Left to right: James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Katherine R. Goldstein, Michael A. Asaro, and Parvin Daphne Moyne (photos courtesy of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP)
In two recent high-profile decisions, Chastain v. United States and Johnson v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed wire fraud convictions that were based on theories resembling insider trading.[1] In both cases, the government invoked the wire fraud statute, and not a securities fraud statute, because the products at issue (non-fungible tokens and spot foreign currency) were not securities. These cases mark the latest developments in a long-running, ongoing and sometimes head-spinning debate in the courts concerning the breadth of the federal property fraud statutes.

