Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344): Charges and Penalties

Bank fraud is among the most versatile and severe provisions in the federal financial crime statutes. The twenty-year maximum sentence, the ten-year limitations period, and the statute’s breadth make it a charging instrument that appears in indictments ranging from sophisticated mortgage fraud schemes to straightforward check kiting.

18 U.S.C. 1344 provides that whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme 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 subject to a fine of not more than one million dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty years, or both. The maximum sentence was increased to thirty years for offenses occurring after 2009 affecting financial institutions. The statute has two distinct theories: the defraud theory and the false pretenses theory.

The Two Theories

The defraud theory prohibits schemes to defraud the bank itself, meaning schemes designed to cause the bank to suffer a financial loss through deception. The false pretenses theory prohibits schemes to obtain property from the bank through false representations, regardless of whether the bank itself suffers a direct financial loss. The distinction matters because some courts have held that the false pretenses theory requires proof that the bank was a victim of the false representations, while others have held that the statute reaches conduct where the bank was an unwitting conduit for fraud affecting a third party.

Mortgage fraud cases typically involve both theories. A defendant who submitted a false loan application misrepresented facts to the bank, satisfying the false pretenses theory. If the loan was approved on the basis of those misrepresentations and the bank suffered a loss when the loan defaulted, the defraud theory applies as well. Where the loan did not default and the bank suffered no loss, the viability of the defraud theory is more contested, though the false pretenses theory remains available.

Common Prosecuted Conduct

Federal bank fraud prosecutions encompass a wide range of conduct. Mortgage fraud, which encompasses false income statements, inflated appraisals, straw buyer schemes, and undisclosed second mortgages, represents the largest category by case volume. Commercial loan fraud, involving false financial statements submitted to obtain business loans, represents the second largest category.

Check kiting, the manipulation of multiple bank accounts through the float period to create artificial balances, is a classic bank fraud theory that the statute addresses directly. Account takeover fraud, involving unauthorized access to and withdrawals from bank accounts, is prosecuted under the statute where the access was obtained through misrepresentation. Elder financial exploitation, where the victims are deceived into authorizing transfers from their own accounts, is increasingly prosecuted under the bank fraud statute alongside state elder abuse provisions.

Sentencing in Bank Fraud Cases

The guidelines calculation in bank fraud cases is driven primarily by the loss table, which applies to financial fraud offenses generally. The loss attributable to the bank fraud counts, combined with any money laundering enhancements, produces the offense level that determines the guidelines range. For mortgage fraud cases, courts have wrestled with the appropriate measure of loss: the face amount of the fraudulent loans, the actual loss to the lender after foreclosure and resale, or the intended loss that the defendant sought to cause.

The relevant conduct provision extends the loss calculation to include all transactions within the same course of conduct or common scheme. A mortgage fraud defendant convicted of a single fraudulent loan may be sentenced based on the total loss attributable to a series of transactions carried out over several years, if the government establishes that those transactions were part of the same scheme.

Bank fraud carries a ten-year statute of limitations, which is double the general five-year federal limitation period. The extended window reflects Congress’s specific concern with financial institution fraud and gives prosecutors additional time to build complex cases. For defendants whose conduct falls near the limitations boundary, the extension is the difference between protection and exposure.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted Multi-State Licensed Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

Defense Considerations

Bank fraud defenses address the knowing and intentional elements with particular force. A defendant who submitted a loan application containing inaccuracies that they believed were immaterial, who relied on representations by brokers or appraisers that they did not know were false, or who disclosed the relevant facts to the lender without understanding which representations were false is a defendant whose mental state may not satisfy the knowing element.

The good faith defense, the statute’s scienter requirement, and the argument that the bank was not actually deceived where it possessed information sufficient to discover the falsity are each available depending on the specific facts. The defense that begins with a precise analysis of what the defendant knew, when they knew it, and what information was available to the lending institution is the defense most likely to identify the specific arguments that the evidence supports.