Whoever, being an officer, agent or employee of or connected in any capacity with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, any Federal home loan bank, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Farm Credit Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture acting through the Farmers Home Administration or successor agency, the Rural Development Administration or successor agency, or the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, a Farm Credit Bank, a bank for cooperatives or any lending, mortgage, insurance, credit or savings and loan corporation or association authorized or acting under the laws of the United States or any institution, other than an insured bank (as defined in section 656), the accounts of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or by the National Credit Union Administration Board or any small business investment company, or any community development financial institution receiving financial assistance under the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, and whoever, being a receiver of any such institution, or agent or employee of the receiver, embezzles, abstracts, purloins or willfully misapplies any moneys, funds, credits, securities or other things of value belonging to such institution, or pledged or otherwise intrusted to its care, shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both; but if the amount or value 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.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Weldon Rushing Payne, Lloyd Earl Taylor, 750 F.2d 844 (11th Cir. 1985).
· cites it 19× “The jury found both appellants guilty on five counts of misapplication of Federal Land Bank funds ( 18 U.S.C. § 657 1 ), four counts of unlawful participation in the proceeds of Federal Land Bank loans, or aiding and abetting the same ( 18 U.”
United States v. Debbe Marquardt, 786 F.2d 771 (7th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 9× “The defendant-appellant, Debbe Marquardt, was convicted of willfully misapplying the funds, moneys and credits of a federally insured savings and loan institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657 1 and of knowingly and willfully making false entries into a book, report or…”
United States v. Munoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007).
· cites it 7× “§ 371 ; and misapplication of bank funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657 . The indictment also charged Muñoz-Franco *34 and Sánchez-Arán with bank fraud under 18 U.”
United States v. Don Stovall & Robert Harlon \Frosty\" Winter", 825 F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1987).
· cites it 7× “§ 1006 (count one); misapplying funds by loaning money to Abies for non-agricultural purposes, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657 (count two); and (3) recording a false statement when he credited Abies’ account with his own funds, a violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Katrina Ann Tingle, 658 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1981).
· cites it 4× “8 Tingle argues in the alternative that she is not guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 657 because she did not take the money from the safe or possess that money at any time.”
United States v. Louis Rochester, 898 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1990).
· cites it 3× “§ 1341 ), Count 17 (misapplication of funds of a federally insured institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657 ), Count 18 (false entry in a loan record in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Robert Harris Cartwright, 632 F.2d 1290 (5th Cir. 1980).
· cites it 5× “For his fraudulent activities involving Sinton Service Corporation funds, he was convicted on five counts of misapplying the funds of a federally insured institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657 , two counts of falsifying documents in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Everett D. Seacott, 15 F.3d 1380 (7th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 3× “Seacott pled guilty to one count of willfully misapplying bank funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657 . Pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.”
United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “In Cartwright , the Fifth Circuit concluded that a subsidiary's assets "belonged to" a parent corporation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 657 , which made it a crime to misapply funds belonging to a financial institution.”
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.