What is the test for whether a crime of moral turpitude involves fraudulent intent?

Id. at 214. The defendant was charged under both subsection (a)for attempting to induce a witness to unlawfully withhold testimonyand subsection (b), for attempting to induce a witness to be absent from a proceeding to which she was legally summoned. Id. at 21314. The facts in McBeth do not suggest fraud, which we have defined as requiring that an individual employ false statements to obtain something tangible. Blanco v. Mukasey , 518 F.3d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 2008). Specificallyand dispositive of our analysis on this pointneither impeding law enforcement nor wrongfully interfering with the administration of justice constitutes a tangible "benefit" for purposes of determining whether a crime involves fraudulent intent. Id. at 71920. Nor was the defendants conduct base, vile, or depraved; his actions did not "shock[ ] the public conscience," nor did they involve an intent to injure another, an actual injury to another, or a protected class of victim. See Nunez , 594 F.3d at 1131 ("[N]on-fraudulent crimes of moral turpitude almost always involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affects a protected class of victim.").

[899 F.3d 841]