The concept of materiality is critical in criminal fraud and false statement cases, as well as civil fraud cases, because it is what distinguishes harmless misrepresentations from consequential ones. A misrepresentation is material only when it is capable of influencing the decision-maker.
Courts and litigants have often struggled when applying this standard in close cases, in part because the standard raises a theoretical question: If the recipient of the false statement knew the truth, could that have influenced the recipient’s decision? The Third Circuit recently weighed in on this requirement in United States v. Johnson, providing helpful guidance to courts and litigants alike.
Source:
