18 U.S.C. § 1344
Bank fraud
1990—Pub. L. 101–647 substituted “30” for “20” before “years”.
1989—Pub. L. 101–73 amended section generally, restating former subsec. (a) and striking out former subsec. (b) which defined “federally chartered or insured financial institution”. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
“(1) to defraud a federally chartered or insured financial institution; or
“(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities or other property owned by or under the custody or control of a federally chartered or insured financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,265
cases (366 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: United States v. Elie F. Abboud (04-3942) and Michel Abboud (04-3943)
United States v. Elie F. Abboud (04-3942) and Michel Abboud (04-3943) (2006)
“Abboud and Michel Abboud appeal the July 13, 2004 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio convicting and sentencing Defendants for bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (1); money laundering in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Gallant (2008)
“They contend that BestBank was aware of the credits and re-aging practices and, as a result, they cannot be guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (1) of defrauding BestBank.”
United States v. Davila (2017)
“United States, the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase "by means of" in the bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344 . 134 S. Ct. 2384 (2014).”
United States v. Warshak (2010)
“(8) The evidence was sufficient to support Warshak's and Harriet's respective convictions for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 . Furthermore, the district court did not err in instructing the jury that, under certain circumstances, the government may prove specific…”
United States v. Ross (2007)
“Ross appeals his conviction on two counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 . Defendant challenges (1) the deliberate ignorance jury instruction given by the district court, (2) the government's questioning of defendant regarding his personal bankruptcy petition,…”
United States v. Bruce Bonnett (1989)
“Bruce Bonnett appeals his conviction of one count of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Supp. II 1984) in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Schwartz, Steven A. (1990)
“Schwartz, appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered May 26, 1989, on two counts of a three count indictment charging him with bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (a). We are concerned with essentially legal issues as Schwartz indicates in his brief that the…”
United States v. Paul J. Leahy United States of America v. Timothy Smith United States of America v. Dantone, Inc. (2006)
“A jury found Smith, Leahy, and Dantone guilty of engaging in, and aiding and abetting, bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . This matter presents several issues on appeal.”
United States v. William J. Davis (2005)
“Davis appeals his conviction and sentence for bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 , entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on August 29, 2003.”
United States v. Munoz-Franco (2007)
“4 The third superseding indictment charged Mu-ñoz-Franco, Sánchez-Arán, Gutiérrez, Umpierre-Hernández, Enrique Gutiérrez (Ariel Gutiérrez’s brother, who was also involved in running the Gutiérrez corporations), and Rafael Dominguez Wolff (who purchased several projects from the…”
United States v. Keith Vinson (2017)
“As to Count One, the jury found that each of the objects of the bank fraud conspiracy involving the Lot Loan Scheme had been proven, that is, defrauding a bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (1) and obtaining bank funds by false and fraudulent pretenses under § 1344(2).”
United States v. Timothy J. Swanson (2004)
“Swanson was convicted of one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (1), which makes it a crime to “knowingly execute[ ], or attempt[ ] to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud a financial institution.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1) — 3 cases
United States v. Gregory (2022)
— 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1998) — 1 case
— 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) — 7 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.