Bank Scheme Ruling Spotlights Clash Over Limits Of Fraud
Litigation attorneys Eddie Jauregui, Dan Small and Gary Klubok co-authored an article in Law360 about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Yates, an unusual bank fraud case with broad implications. The crux of Yates was that neither depriving a bank of accurate information, nor deceiving a bank to draw an existing salary from the bank, can support convictions for bank fraud. The Ninth Circuit held that these two things are not cognizable property interests under the bank fraud statute, and vacated all convictions.
The government's theories in Yates and the reasons why the Ninth Circuit rejected them are instructive for future cases, as they help clarify what is not bank fraud in the Ninth Circuit and beyond. Further, Yates is the latest round in an ongoing tug of war between prosecutors trying to broaden the reach of key federal fraud statutes, and courts trying to narrow and define them.