United States v. Davis [1982]

678 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1982) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · United States

White Collar Crimewhite-collar-crimeWhite Collar CrimeBank fraud – scheme to defraud

Issue

Whether the bank fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1344) requires that the defendant specifically intended to defraud the bank, or merely that the bank was exposed to a risk of loss.

Held

Bank fraud requires specific intent to deceive the bank in order to obtain property; a mere risk of loss is insufficient without intent to harm the bank.

Exam use

Summary

Whether the bank fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1344) requires that the defendant specifically intended to defraud the bank, or merely that the bank was exposed to a risk of loss.

Facts

Issue

Whether the bank fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1344) requires that the defendant specifically intended to defraud the bank, or merely that the bank was exposed to a risk of loss.

Held

Bank fraud requires specific intent to deceive the bank in order to obtain property; a mere risk of loss is insufficient without intent to harm the bank.

Ratio Decidendi

For bank fraud, the government must prove the defendant knowingly executed a scheme to defraud a financial institution with the intent to obtain property by means of false pretenses.

Reasoning

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to United States v. Davis (678 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1982)) strengthens a White Collar Crime answer because the case reflects the principle that For bank fraud, the government must prove the defendant knowingly executed a scheme to defraud a financial institution with the intent to obtain property by means of false pretenses. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the bank fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1344) requires that the defendant specifically intended to defraud the bank, or merely that the bank was exposed to a risk of loss. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • white-collar-crime
  • White Collar Crime
  • Bank fraud – scheme to defraud
  • case authority
  • exam application

Significance

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.