Loughrin v. United States
Holding
A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), which makes it a crime to "knowing execut[e] a scheme " to obtain " property owned by, or under the custody of, a bank "by means of false or fraudulent pretenses," does not require the government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution.
Judgment
Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Elena Kagan on Jun 23, 1914. Justices Scalia and Thomas join the opinion as to Parts I and II, Part III-A except the last paragraph, an the last footnote of Part III-B. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgement.
Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Issue: Whether the government must prove that the defendant intended to defraud a bank and expose it to risk of loss in every prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
Recommended Citation: Loughrin v. United States, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/loughrin-v-united-states/