Shaw v. United States - 580 U.S. 63, 137 S. Ct. 462 (2016)

Rule:

For purposes of the bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1344, 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 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.

Facts:

Petitioner used identifying numbers of a bank account belonging to a bank customer in a scheme to transfer funds from that account to accounts at other institutions from which petitioner was able to obtain the bank customer’s funds. Petitioner was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §1344(1), which made it a crime to “knowingly execute a scheme to defraud a financial institution.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the petitioner’s conviction. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari arguing that the words “scheme to defraud a financial institution” required the Government to prove that the petitioner had a specific intent not only to deceive, but also to cheat a bank, rather than a non-bank third party. 

Issue:

Did 18 U.S.C.S. § 1344 cover schemes to deprive bank of money in customer's deposit account? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

For purposes of the bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1344, a scheme fraudulently to obtain funds from a bank depositor’s account normally was also a scheme fraudulently to obtain property from a financial institution, at least where defendant knew that the bank held the deposits, the funds obtained came from the deposit account, and defendant misled the bank in order to obtain those funds. In this case, the petitioner’s arguments that § 1344 did not cover schemes to deprive a bank of customer deposits were rejected where no intent to cause financial loss was required, petitioner's legal ignorance was not a defense, and the statute was clear enough that the rule of lenity was unnecessary.