« With only two dissenters, SCOTUS refuses to hear Ohio death row defendant's arguments against a second execution attempt | Main | Remembering Eighth Circuit Judge Myron Bright, a first-ballot "Sentencing Hall of Famer" »

December 12, 2016

Another unanimous SCOTUS win for feds in bank fraud case

Last week, as blogged here, the Supreme Court handed down its first significant criminal justice ruling of the Term via a unanimous decision against a white-collar defendant in Salman v. US, No. 15-628 (S. Ct. Dec. 6, 2016) (available here).  Today, brought another such ruling in Shaw v. US, No. 15-5991 (S. Ct. Dec. 12, 2016) (available here), which gets started this way:

A federal statute makes it a crime “knowingly [to] execut[e] a scheme . . . to defraud a financial institution,” 18 U.S.C. §1344(1), for example, a federally insured bank,18 U. S. C. §20. The petitioner, Lawrence Shaw, was convicted of violating this provision. He argues here that the provision does not apply to him because he intended tocheat only a bank depositor, not a bank. We do not accept his arguments.

Here is part of the substantive heart of the opinion for the Court and its closing flourish via Justice Breyer:

[F]or purposes of the bank fraud statute, a scheme fraudulently to obtain funds from a bank depositor’s account normally is also a scheme fraudulently to obtain property from a “financial institution,” at least where, as here, the defendant knew that the bank held the deposits, the funds obtained came from the deposit account, and the defendant misled the bank in order to obtain those funds....

The statute is clear enough that we need not rely on the rule of lenity.  As we have said, a deposit account at a bank counts as bank property for purposes of subsection (1). Supra, at 2–3.  The defendant, in circumstances such as those present here, need not know that the deposit account is, as a legal matter, characterized as bank property. Supra, at 4–5.  Moreover, in those circumstances, the Government need not prove that the defendant intended that the bank ultimately suffer monetary loss.  Supra, at 3–4. Finally, the statute asapplied here requires a state of mind equivalent to knowledge, not purpose. Supra, at 5–6.

December 12, 2016 at 04:42 PM | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB