Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Bank fraud — intent

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 23, 2014//

Bank fraud — intent

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 23, 2014//

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Criminal

Bank fraud — intent

18 U.S.C. 1344(2) does not require the Government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution.

Section 1344(2) requires only that the defendant intend to obtain bank property and that this end is accomplished “by means of” a false statement. No additional requirement of intent to defraud a bank appears in the statute’s text. And imposing that requirement would prevent §1344(2) from applying to cases falling within the statute’s clear terms, such as frauds directed against a third-party custodian of bank-owned property. Loughrin’s construction would also make §1344(2) a mere subset of §1344(1), which prohibits any scheme “to defraud a financial institution.” That view is untenable because those clauses are separated by the disjunctive “or,” signaling that each is intended to have separate meaning. And to read clause (1) as fully encompassing clause (2) contravenes two related interpretive canons: that different language signals different meaning, and that no part of a statute should be superfluous.

710 F. 3d 1111, affirmed.

13-316 Loughrin v. U.S.

Kagan, J.; Scalia, J., concurring; Alito, J., concurring.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests