of money lawfully in its possession. The dictionary definition of “deprive” means simply to take something away from another. See Merriam Webster Dictionary; Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language. The second element — use of the mails— is not contested. As for the third element — intent to defraud — this element does not require intent to cause a financial loss to another. The requisite intent to defraud requires “an intent to deceive or cheat for the purpose of either causing a financial loss to another or bringing about a financial gain to oneself.” United States v. McAuliffe, supra; United States v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346, 371 (6th Cir.1997) (emphasis added); Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 10.01(2)(E). See also United States v. DeSantis, 134 F.3d 760, 764 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) The indictment’s allegations of Defendant’s
holding that a plaintiff alleging securities fraud must show that a defendant 1 made a material misrepresentation or a material omission as to which he or she had a duty to speak 2 with scienter 3 in connection with the purchase or sale of securities holding that to satisfy the element of specific intent to defraud needed to convict for mail fraud the government must show that the defendant knowingly made a material misrepresentation or knowingly omitted a material fact for the purpose of inducing the victim of the fraud to part with property or undertake some action that he would not otherwise do absent the misrepresentation or omission holding that slusa preempts claims which allege a material misrepresentation or omission in connection with the purchase or sale of securities whether or not that allegation is an element of or otherwise necessary to the putative state claim holding in a civil rico case based upon predicate acts of mail and wire fraud that the plaintiff must plead a material misrepresentation of fact that was calculated or intended to deceive persons of reasonable prudence and comprehension and that the plaintiff relied upon that material misrepresentation to establish the fraud statutes requisite scheme to defraud holding that in order to make out a claim under  14a of the exchange act a plaintiff must show that a proxy statement contained a material misrepresentation or omission that the plaintiff was injured by the material misrepresentation or omission and that the proxy solicitation itself rather than the particular defect in the solicitation materials was an essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction 