Supreme Court of the United States

Kevin Loughrin, Petitioner v. United States.

June 23, 2014573 U.S. 351

Summary

The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) does not require the Government to prove that the defendant specifically intended to defraud a financial institution or that the bank faced a risk of financial loss. The statute requires a knowing scheme to obtain bank property by means of a false or fraudulent representation, and the forged checks in this case satisfied that means requirement because they were designed to induce the transfer of bank funds. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment below.

Holding

  • Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) requires intent to defraud a financial institution.. No. Section 1344(2) does not require proof that the defendant intended to deceive or defraud a bank. It requires a knowing scheme to obtain property owned by or under the custody or control of a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.
  • Whether § 1344(2) requires a risk of bank loss and whether the forged checks were used "by means of" false representations.. No risk-of-loss element is required. The "by means of" requirement limits the statute to frauds in which the false statement is the mechanism naturally inducing a bank or custodian of bank property to part with money in its control. Loughrin's forged and altered checks met that requirement because a merchant would ordinarily forward them to a bank for payment.

Docket 13–316.

Cited authorities

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF