I wouldn’t think so. I can see it being evidence that she knew she was committing fraud, but not of obstruction unless it was accompanied by some other effective means. Look at it this way; when federal LE try to entrap people for things like bomb making, they try to get them to take some initial action, not merely say they want to bomb something. I would have thought that whatever that action was, a reasonable person would have to believe it could be material to the supposedly intended crime.
So convincing a wildly delusional person to buy a dinette set in the belief it would blow someone up surely wouldn’t hold up in court as evidence of any crime. In other words, like I said above, a guilty mind isn’t enough. Does guilty action need to have some basis in reality? I would sure hope so.
