That dog might hunt. Good catch.
Welcome back A.
So you think the courts are now willing to adopt this?
Courts, however, have been reluctant to adopt such a broad interpretation of the bank fraud statute. As explained in H & Q Prop., Inc. v. Doll, 793 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2015), “the purpose of the bank fraud statute is not to protect people who write checks to con artists but to protect the federal government’s interest as an insurer of financial institutions…
Bank Fraud & RICO combined can carry some heavy sentencing ANONS.
The bank fraud statute is potentially just as broad as the mail and wire fraud statutes, but for some reason, plaintiffs often fail to include bank fraud as a predicate act in a RICO claim. The bank fraud statute states:
Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice:
to defraud a financial institution, or
to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 30 years, or both.
http://ricoact.com/?page_id=58
http://ricoact.com/?page_id=58
But does RICO have the impact needed to bring attention to those uninformed and unwilling to look at the truth? I understand this is just a stepping stone.
Nuice!