that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended.’ ” Altman, 48 F.3d at 102-03 (quoting Per-eira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954)) (alteration in original). We hold that this requirement was easily satisfied here given that the settlement checks issued by the insurance companies (i.e., the fruition of the scheme) were sent by mail. In addition, several of the bribes were invoiced and paid by mad. Finally, the appellants’ mandatory filings with the New York State Office of Court Administration, which were adulterated to help conceal the fraud, were sent by mail. See Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 712, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Appellants argue that their prosecution under
recognizing that proof of a business system of preparing and mailing letters and compliance with such a custom in the particular instance is sufficient to establish proof of mailing recognizing that a mailing must be sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to support a charge of mail fraud holding that mailing of titleregistration forms satisfied mailing requirement because they contributed to success of the scheme holding that rule 6e is inapplicable where the time for filing begins to run on the date of mailing holding that the first element of mail fraud  knowing participation in a scheme to defraud  can extend beyond the specific mailing and that the loss calculation for a mail fraud conviction may include any loss from the fraudulent scheme that the mailing furthered