May 24, 2012

Mortgage Lender Not "Financial Institution" for Federal Criminal Bank Fraud Just Because It Was Owned By a Financial Institution

Question: Is a mortgage lender that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a “financial institution” itself a “financial institution” for purposes of federal criminal bank fraud?

Answer: No, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States vs. Bennett, No. 06-50580 (decided September 10, 2010).

In this case, defendant James Bennett used "a sophisticated property-flipping scheme in Southern California” to fraudulently obtain mortgage loans from Equicredit Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America. In the district court, Bennett was convicted of defrauding a “financial institution” under 18 U.S.C. § 1344. That statute defined “financial institution” as any bank or savings association the deposits of which are insured by the FDIC.

On appeal, Bennett argued the Ninth Circuit should reverse his conviction because even though Bank of America was a financial institution, EquiCredit was not (because it was not FDIC-insured). The government contended that a parent corporation “owns” the assets of its wholly-owned subsidiary, and therefore that Bennett fraudulently obtained assets "owned by" Bank of America.

In a 2-1 opinion, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Bennett and reversed the conviction on these counts. The majority noted that “it almost goes without saying that a parent corporation does not own the assets of its wholly-owned subsidiary by virtue of that relationship alone.” And that “we see no reason to set aside fundamental principles of corporate law in the context of the federal bank fraud statute, particularly where Congress provided no indication that we should do so.”

Judge Callahan dissented, concluding that there was sufficient evidence "for a rational juror to find that Bennett obtained property from EquiCredit under the ‘custody or control’ of BoA, even if BoA did not actually exercise actual control over EquiCredit.” And also that “by defrauding EquiCredit, Bennett was defrauding the financial institution BoA, which had the right to ‘custody or control’ over its subsidiary within the meaning of [the criminal statute].”
 

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Partner

Bob Stumpf is a partner in the firm's San Francisco office and serves as leader of the firm's Financial Institutions Litigation team.
 

415-774-3288

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.