In April the U.S. Supreme Court announced its plan to take a new case involving the relevance of intent in bank fraud. In the fall the Supreme Court will rule in Shaw v. United States whether prosecutors are required to prove that a defendant accused of fraud intended to harm the financial institution in question.
This case will be the second time the Supreme Court has reviewed the 1984 Bank Fraud Act. The first came in 2014 when the court decided in Loughrin v. United States that prosecutors needed only to prove a fraudster deceived a bank to use the Bank Fraud Act against a defendant. Unaddressed is the question of whether or not those who’ve committed fraud did so with the intention to maliciously defraud a bank.
Those who believe the 2014 ruling was sufficient and that prosecutors are not required to find that a defendant intended to harm a financial institution are in the minority. While a few cases have been able to uphold convictions lacking proof of intention, the majority of legal minds are stating that intent is crucial in sentencing a person for bank fraud. This majority cites the bank fraud statute.
The statute does state that a person must aim to “obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, 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.” The clause before this, however, states that charges may be brought against someone simply attempting to “defraud a financial institution.”
If you'd like to read more articles by Jeana Goosmann, follow her blog here or on JD Supra here. If you have any questions on the above, don't hesitate to contact Goosmann Law Firm below.
Let Us Know What You Thought about this Post.
Put your Comment Below.