Shaw v United States

Shaw sought review of his bank fraud conviction arguing he intended to defraud a depositor not the bank. The Court unanimously affirmed. It held that Shaw’s actions violated 18 USC 1344(1) because monies deposited in the bank become bank property or the bank has possessory rights like a bailee, the fact that there was no intent to harm the bank is irrelevant under the statute as such intent is not an element of the crime and loss of right to use the deposited funds (which occurred here) is sufficient to sustain a conviction, knowledge of the niceties of bank related property law is not necessary to commit bank fraud and Shaw knew he was lying to a bank to get a depositor’s monies which is sufficient to sustain a conviction, purposeful harm to the bank is not required as the statue covers knowing execution of a fraudulent scheme, that the overlap between 1344(1) and 1344(2) does not mean that Shaw’s actions were excluded form 1344(1) as 1344 (2) also covers lies to third parties which 1344(1) does not require for proof of violation. It remanded to the 9th Circuit to consider Shaw’s jury instruction argument.