By Mark D. Stuaan | The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear arguments later this year related to Loughrin vs. United States, which involves a bank fraud prosecution out of the Tenth Circuit. At issue is whether the government must prove that the defendant intended to defraud a bank and expose it to risk of loss in every prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The question reflects a split in the federal courts of appeals. The Supreme Court granted Loughrin’s petition for certiorari in mid-December 2013. The case was premised on the defendant allegedly stealing checks out of mailboxes, altering the checks, and then using the altered checks for purchases at a large retail store. Even though the defendant did not defraud a financial institution, the prosecution successfully argued in the District Court and Tenth Circuit that Loughrin violated Section 1344 under the so-called “second prong” of the statute because the checks were drawn on accounts at federally insured institutions: “to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, . . . , or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” 18 U.S.C. 1344(2). The Tenth Circuit said: “Loughrin counters that our interpretation of § 1344(2) creates bank fraud liability for any fraudulent scheme as long as a bank’s assets are somehow involved, an outcome allegedly contrary to congressional intent and in conflict with the decisions of several circuits. We recognize that our interpretation of § 1344(2) may cast a wide net for bank fraud liability, but it is dictated by the plain language of the statute and our prior precedent.” The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is likely to resolve a Circuit split the question whether the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to defraud a financial institution in order to be convicted of violating Section 1344. In other words, it may well decide that the scope of Section 1344 is not as broad as the government would like.
Supreme Court Case Likely to Resolve Dispute on What Government Must Prove in Bank Fraud Prosecutions
Mark D. Stuaan
PartnerRELATED ARTICLES
Scope of DOJ’s Enforcement of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act After Van Buren
June 30, 2021 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
Supreme Court Misses Its Chance To Define Limits of SEC’s Enforcement Authority
June 30, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC
Well, That Didn’t Take Long – and With No Fanfare, Decades of Administrative Law Are Upended
July 13, 2018 | Case to Watch, The GEE Blog
Supreme Court Decides Lucia – But the Saga Continues
July 9, 2018 | Case to Watch, The GEE Blog
First-Time Supreme Court Advocate Appointed to Argue the SEC’s Case in Lucia
January 23, 2018 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Scope of DOJ’s Enforcement of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act After Van Buren
June 30, 2021 | The GEE Blog, Department of Justice
Supreme Court Misses Its Chance To Define Limits of SEC’s Enforcement Authority
June 30, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC
Well, That Didn’t Take Long – and With No Fanfare, Decades of Administrative Law Are Upended
July 13, 2018 | Case to Watch, The GEE Blog
Supreme Court Decides Lucia – But the Saga Continues
July 9, 2018 | Case to Watch, The GEE Blog
First-Time Supreme Court Advocate Appointed to Argue the SEC’s Case in Lucia
January 23, 2018 | SEC, The GEE Blog
SEC’s Appointments Clause Dilemma Gets Worse
January 16, 2018 | SEC, The GEE Blog
U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Blow Limiting SEC Disgorgement Power
June 12, 2017 | SEC, The GEE Blog
The Best Policy: Fifth Circuit Finds Prosecutorial Misconduct and Vindictiveness
March 24, 2016 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
WHY NEWMAN MIGHT NOT BE HEADED TO THE SUPREME COURT
August 11, 2015 | Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
SCOTUS Limits Definition of “Tangible Object” under Sarbanes-Oxley Act
March 3, 2015 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Supreme Court Passes on Esquenazi, Makes Instrumentality Test Settled Law
October 6, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
Corporations and Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: Does the Supreme Court’s Decision in Riley v. California Signal the Rebirth of the 4th Amendment in White Collar Cases?
July 18, 2014 | Case to Watch, The GEE Blog
Case to Watch – Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice – Has the Supreme Court undermined the misappropriation theory of insider trading?
March 29, 2014 | Case to Watch, Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
Barnes & Thornburg Legal Alert - Supreme Court Opens a Pandora’s Box of Whistleblower Litigation
March 7, 2014 | The GEE Blog
The Government Has Frozen My Bank Accounts, What Do I Do Now? Analyzing Asset Forfeiture After Kaley v. U.S.
March 3, 2014 | Criminal Procedure, Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
The SEC and Its “Strange Bedfellows” Argue Against Investors Seeking Damages for Fraud – Are Rebuffed by the Supreme Court
March 3, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
A Little-Known Exception to the 4th Amendment: Is Your Company’s Confidential, Proprietary Data Safe from Government Inspection When Entering the U.S.?
February 27, 2014 | Privacy, The GEE Blog
Warrant Required to Search Cell Phone?
January 27, 2014 | Criminal Procedure, The GEE Blog
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center