Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

The defendants were indicted for committing and conspiring to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 & 1349, by extracting money from lenders (including Bank of America) that had financed the sale of defendants' Gary, Indiana properties. The defendants had represented that buyers of the properties were the source of the down payments; the defendants had actually given the buyers the money to enable them to make the down payments. They had also helped the buyers provide, in loan applications, false claims of creditworthiness. The judge ordered restitution of $893,015 to Bank of America. The Seventh Circuit remanded, directing the court to consider an alternative remedy. Restitution is questionable because Bank of America, though not a coconspirator, did not have clean hands. It ignored clear signs that the loans were “phony.” The court referred to a history of “shady” practices and characterized the Bank as “reckless.” The court acknowledged that the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act requires “mandatory restitution to victims,” 18 U.S.C. 3663A, for “an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a victim of the offense,” but stated that Bank of America was deliberately indifferent to the risk of losing its own money, because it intended to sell the mortgages and transfer the risk of loss to Fannie Mae for a profit. View "United States v. Tartareanu" on Justia Law

Shaw used identifying numbers of Hsu's bank account in a scheme to transfer funds from that account to accounts at other institutions from which Shaw was able to obtain Hsu’s funds. Shaw was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1344(1), which makes it a crime to “knowingly execut[e] a scheme . . . to defraud a financial institution.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed. A unanimous Supreme Court vacated and remanded for consideration of whether the district court improperly instructed the jury that a scheme to defraud a bank must be one to deceive the bank or deprive it of something of value, instead of one to deceive and deprive. The Court rejected Shaw’s other arguments. Subsection (1) of the statute covers schemes to deprive a bank of money in a customer’s account. The bank had property rights in Hsu’s deposits as a source of loans from which to earn profits or as a bailee. The statute requires neither a showing that the bank suffered ultimate financial loss nor a showing that the defendant intended to cause such loss. Shaw knew that the bank possessed Hsu’s account, Shaw made false statements to the bank, Shaw believed that those false statements would lead the bank to release from that account funds that ultimately, wrongfully ended up with Shaw. Shaw knew that he was entering into a scheme to defraud the bank even if he was not familiar with bank-related property law. Subsection (2), which criminalizes the use of “false or fraudulent pretenses” to obtain “property . . . under the custody or control of” a bank, does not exclude Shaw’s conduct from subsection (1). View "Shaw v. United States" on Justia Law

Following his arrest for illegal drug activity, Petitioner was released on bond and withdrew all of the money contained in two bank accounts. Law enforcement traced the money to Petitioner’s sister’s bank account and seized the bank account. Less than ninety days after the conclusion of Petitioner’s criminal proceedings, the Department of Finance of Montgomery County filed a complaint petition for currency forfeiture as to the sister’s bank account. Petitioner’s sister argued that her bank account was not “money” under Maryland's forfeiture statute and that the complaint for forfeiture was untimely filed. The circuit court rejected that argument and ultimately found that the funds in the bank account constituted illegal drug proceeds. The court, therefore, granted forfeiture of the entire amount. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the funds contained in a bank account are “money” for purposes of the forfeiture statute; and (2) the forfeiting authority timely filed the complaint for forfeiture of the bank account within the deadline applicable to the filing of a complaint for forfeiture of money. View "Bottini v. Dep’t of Finance, Montgomery County" on Justia Law

Ajayi, an electrical engineer, wanted to start a business selling MRI products in Africa. He incorporated GRI in Illinois and another company in Africa and sought investors. While traveling, he solicited a $45,000 investment from Brown. After returning home, Ajayi received a $344,657.84 check, payable to another company . He called Brown, who explained that the accounting department had made an error, told Ajayi to deposit the check, and stated that they would work out a way for Ajayi to refund the difference. Ajayi deposited the check through an ATM into his GRI account, which previously had a balance of $90.08, After the check cleared, Brown flew to Chicago and demanded repayment. Pursuant to Brown’s instructions, between December 9 and December 12, 2009, Ajayi wrote at least five checks to himself from the GRI account and cashed them. Ajayi was convicted of five counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344(1) and (2) and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957(a) and was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence that Ajayi knew that the check was altered and upheld the exclusion of the emails, but concluded that four bank fraud counts were multiplicitous. View "United States v. Ajayi" on Justia Law

Churn, the owner of a Tennessee construction company, was convicted of seven counts of bank fraud stemming from two schemes in which he received bank loans ostensibly to construct houses, but performed little to no work. The district court sentenced him to 33 months in prison and ordered restitution of $237,950.50. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court made evidentiary errors concerning admission of an email statement, admission of testimony concerning a permit, and admission of evidence about another transaction, and that the amount of restitution exceeded a statutory maximum under the Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A. View "United States v. Churn" on Justia Law

In 2007 fraudulent checks in the amount of $181,577 were cashed against the accounts of seven Citizens Bank customers in New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Fraud investigator Swoyer discovered that Tolliver’s employee number was the only one used to access all of the accounts; only Tolliver and one assistant manager worked on all of the days on which the accounts were accessed.. Swoyer, Postal Inspector Busch, and a Secret Service agent interviewed Tolliver. At trial, Swoyer testified that he reviewed Tolliver’s entire logbook with her and that Tolliver told him that she had not given her password to anyone and that she always logged off her computer when she walked away from a terminal. Seven of Tolliver’s former co-workers testified they never knew Tolliver’s password or saw it written down. A jury convicted Tolliver of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344, aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a), and unauthorized use of a computer, 18 U.S.C. 1030. The court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and restitution. The Third Circuit affirmed. Tolliver, represented by newly appointed counsel, filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, claiming that her trial counsel was ineffective by failure to investigate. The district court granted her motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Third Circuit vacated. View "United States v. Tolliver" on Justia Law

Over four years, Dade, a former licensed real estate agent, with co-defendants, facilitated loans to purchase residential real estate by knowingly providing lenders with false statements and documents. Dade referred potential buyers to loan officers and provided false payroll stubs and W-2 forms from fake companies. Dade (with help) refinanced a mortgage on his own Chicago property, stating that he was paying monthly rent of $1,450 (he did not live in the house), and provided a rental verification from “Jireh,” which did not exist. Dade received a $156,000 loan. He was charged with bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344, wire fraud, section 1343, and mail fraud, section 1341. He pleaded guilty to bank fraud, based on the fraudulent refinancing; the remaining charges were dismissed. The government sought a 2-level upward adjustment for his role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the offense, U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c). When preparing the presentence report, however, the probation officer concluded that a 4-level upward adjustment would be appropriate, stating that the scheme had involved five or more participants and Dade had organized the scheme. The government adopted that position, recounting the facts underlying the charges dismissed as part of Dade’s plea agreement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his 20-month sentence, upholding the upward adjustment. View "United States v. Dade" on Justia Law

Brown defrauded Chicago-area mortgage lenders in 2004-2008, arranging with home builders and other sellers of new houses to receive fees for locating buyers to purchase their properties at inflated prices. Using his businesses, including Chicago Global, Brown located nominee buyers. To obtain financing, the nominees were referred to loan officers, including Spencer, who fraudulently qualified them for loans through false statements and documentation. Once a purchase was finalized, Brown and his coconspirators kept the surplus amount above what the seller was seeking. As co-owner of Chicago Global, Jackson recruited nominee buyers and provided, or caused to be provided, funds for the purchases and falsely represented the nominees as the source of those funds. Jackson’s participation in the scheme resulted in $8,515,570 losses to lenders. Spencer’s participation as a loan officer, assisting nominee buyers in 12 different fraudulent real estate transactions, resulted in $3,091,050 losses to lenders. Jackson was charged with wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Spencer’s conviction for bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344, and mail fraud and her 36-month sentence and affirmed Jackson’s conviction, but vacated her 112-month sentence, finding that an obstruction of justice enhancement was improperly applied. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law

In 2007, Suarez, a 75-year-old widower from Mexico, opened a checking account at an Illinois Chase Bank. DeMarco, the branch manager, assisted him. The two became friends. Suarez was trying to sell his three acre property, listed for $1.8 million. DeMarco convinced Suarez to break his listing contract, indicating that he had a buyer. DeMarco told Suarez that he needed a home equity line of credit (HELOC) to complete the sale. DeMarco obtained a $250,000 HELOC, under Suarez’s name, secured by Suarez’s property. DeMarco caused the lender to transfer the proceeds into a joint checking account, which he opened in his and Suarez’s name. After the transfer, DeMarco withdrew $245,000 and deposited the funds into his personal account. After Chase terminated his employment, DeMarco transferred the funds into new accounts and spent most of the proceeds to pay off his credit card debt, improve his home and on cars and vacations. He used a small fraction of the money to pay off Suarez’s debts. Suarez later noted irregularities in his bank statement and contacted the FBI. DeMarco was convicted of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 and sentenced to 48 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings and to the sentence, claiming that the court erred by applying a two-level increase to his base offense level for abuse of a position of trust, U.S.S.G. 3B1.3, and the use of sophisticated means, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1). View "United States v. DeMarco" on Justia Law

In 2005, Lee, a Sevierville contractor, owed a substantial debt to Whaley, for loans that financed houses being built by Lee. Whaley proposed to recruit straw buyers for sham purchases of the properties. Eight straw buyers were referred to Bevins, a mortgage broker with whom Whaley had previously dealt. Whaley prepared the contracts and set the prices. Bevins prepared loan applications that falsely inflated the buyers’ incomes and assets and stated that they would bring funds to closing. The closings were conducted by Kerley’s title company. Although none of the buyers brought funds to the closings, Kerley signed HUD-1 forms, indicating that they did. The properties later went into foreclosure. The lenders incurred substantial losses. Lee and Bevins pled guilty and agreed to cooperate. The judge denied Kerley’s motion to sever, concluding that proposed redactions to Whaley’s statement remedied potential violation of Kerley’s Confrontation Clause rights and held that Whaley was not entitled to introduce his own hearsay statements. Both were convicted of money laundering, conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution and bank fraud, wire fraud affecting a financial institution, bank fraud, and making a false statement to a financial institution. They were sentenced to 60 months and 48 months imprisonment, respectively, and ordered to pay $1,901,980.31 in restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and Kerley’s sentence, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, and the court’s refusal to sever. View "United States v. Whaley" on Justia Law