Whoever, being an officer, director, agent or employee of, or connected in any capacity with any Federal Reserve bank, member bank, depository institution holding company, national bank, insured bank, branch or agency of a foreign bank, or organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) 11 See References in Text note below. of the Federal Reserve Act, or a receiver of a national bank, insured bank, branch, agency, or organization or any agent or employee of the receiver, or a Federal Reserve Agent, or an agent or employee of a Federal Reserve Agent or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, embezzles, abstracts, purloins or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds or credits of such bank, branch, agency, or organization or holding company or any moneys, funds, assets or securities intrusted to the custody or care of such bank, branch, agency, or organization, or holding company or to the custody or care of any such agent, officer, director, employee or receiver, shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both; but if the amount embezzled, abstracted, purloined or misapplied does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
As used in this section, the term “national bank” is synonymous with “national banking association”; “member bank” means and includes any national bank, state bank, or bank and trust company which has become a member of one of the Federal Reserve banks; “insured bank” includes any bank, banking association, trust company, savings bank, or other banking institution, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and the term “branch or agency of a foreign bank” means a branch or agency described in section 20(9) of this title. For purposes of this section, the term “depository institution holding company” has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
Notes of Decisions
Elanith Valansi v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 278 F.3d 203 (3rd Cir. 2002).
· cites it 38× “The Board ruled that the petitioner’s conviction for embezzling, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 , in excess of $400,000 in cash and checks from her employer (the First Union National Bank) was an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and…”
United States v. Temitope Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 9× “§ 1651 claiming that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when he plead guilty to embezzlement by a bank employee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 , a Class B felony. For the following reasons, we grant the petition and vacate Akinsade’s conviction.”
United States v. Keith Vinson, 852 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 5× “§ 371 ; • Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, and Ten — That Vinson, on five occasions, aided and abetted the misapplication of bank funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 656 and 2; • Counts Seven and Eight — That Vinson committed and aided and abetted two wire fraud offenses affecting…”
Carlos-blaza v. Holder, 611 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 14× “The IJ entered the order on remand from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) after the BIA decided that Carlos-Blaza’s guilty plea to stealing, embezzling, and misapplying $65,000 of bank funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 qualified as an aggravated felony under 8 U.”
United States v. Basil G. Georgiadis, 933 F.2d 1219 (3rd Cir. 1991).
· cites it 8× “”) after he pleaded guilty to four counts of bank embezzlement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 . Only the sentencing on counts three and four is at issue, because the embezzlements alleged in counts one and two pre-date the Guidelines.”
United States v. Bernice T. Morales, 978 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1992).
· cites it 6× “HILL, Senior Circuit Judge: Bernice Morales was convicted of one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 656 , misapplication of bank funds by a bank employee, and now appeals, assigning as error the district court’s refusal to give her proposed “theory of defense” jury instruction.”
United States v. Cheryl Humphrey, 279 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Defendant-Appellant Cheryl Ann Humphrey (“Humphrey”) appeals her jury conviction and sentence for one count of embezzling bank funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 , and five counts of making false entries in bank records with the intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.”
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.