Li v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. Nov. 19. 2004) (conviction of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, is divisible with respect to the fraud offense aggravated felony defined in INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), since it does not require proof of any monetary loss and so does not automatically satisfy the element of this aggravated felony definition requiring a loss to the victim(s) in excess of $10,000, so the record of conviction must be examined to determine whether the conviction falls within the definition).

Ferreira v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2004) (California conviction of welfare fraud, in violation of Welf. & Inst. Code 10980(c)(2), constitutes an offense involving fraud or deceit with a loss to the victim in excess of $10,000, for purposes of qualifying as an aggravated felony as defined under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C.

Ferreira v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2004) (California conviction of welfare fraud, in violation of Welf. & Inst. Code 10980(c)(2), as interpreted by California judicial decisions defining the elements of the offense, invariably requires an element of fraud or deceit, and therefore constitutes an offense involving fraud or deceit for purposes of qualifying as an aggravated felony as defined under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) triggering deportation).

United States v. Tarallo, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2004) (defendant may commit securities fraud "willfully" in violation of 15 U.S.C. 78ff and 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5 even if he did not know at the time of the acts that the conduct violated the law if s/he intentionally acted with reckless disregard for the truth of material misleading statements).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0250252p.pdf

United States v. Doe 374 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. July 06, 2004) (amount of restitution imposed must reflect the losses of identified victims).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0310186p.pdf

United States v. Morgan, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 WL 1636929 (9th Cir. July 23, 2004) (district court erred in including interest and finance charges in calculation of total amount of loss for sentencing purposes).

United States v. Hickey, 367 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. April 30, 2004) (order of disgorgement of $1.1 million in civil action brought by SEC did not bar government from proceeding criminally against defendant, or from proving losses of more than $1.1 million).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210197p.pdf

United States v. Hickey, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. April 30, 2004) (order of disgorgement of $1,100,000 in a civil action brought by the SEC did not bar the government under collateral order doctrine from proceeding criminally against him, or from proving losses in excess of that amount).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210197p.pdf

United States v. Wang, 84 Fed.Appx. 950 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2003) (Not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) (conviction of submitting false documents to United States Customs Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 542, constituted fraud conviction with loss to victim in excess of $10,000, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), for immigration purposes).

Munroe v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. Dec. 16, 2003) (New Jersey theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C: 20-4, held to be aggravated felony fraud conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), for deportation purposes where actual loss to victim exceeded $10,000, even though sentencing judge reduced amount of restitution from $11,522 to $9,999, since critical fact is amount of loss, not restitution amount).