## Facts

- Kevin Loughrin stole checks from outgoing mail, altered them, and used them at Target to buy goods.
- He then returned the goods to Target for cash.
- The altered checks were drawn on accounts at federally insured banks.
- Target submitted the checks to the banks for payment, placing bank-controlled funds at risk.
- Loughrin was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), among other charges.

## Issues

1. Whether conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) requires proof that the defendant intended to defraud a financial institution.
2. What connection must exist between the false representation and a bank’s release of its property for § 1344(2) to apply.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The Court held that § 1344(2) does not require intent to defraud a financial institution.
- The Government must prove the defendant intended to obtain bank property and did so “by means of” false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.
- The Court read “by means of” to require a real connection between the misrepresentation and the bank’s release of its property (i.e., the falsehood must be the mechanism that induces release of bank-controlled funds).
- Concurring Justices agreed no bank-defrauding intent is required, but disagreed with aspects of the majority’s limiting gloss on “by means of.”

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 1344 establishes two distinct offenses: (1) schemes to defraud a financial institution, and (2) schemes to obtain bank property by means of false or fraudulent representations.
- Under § 1344(2), the required intent is to obtain property owned by or under the custody or control of a financial institution, not an intent to cheat the bank itself.
- The “by means of” element limits § 1344(2) to cases where the misrepresentation is the operative cause of a bank (or custodian of bank property) parting with money in its control; incidental bank involvement is insufficient.
- Courts should not add an “intent to defraud a financial institution” element to § 1344(2) because Congress included that language only in § 1344(1).

## Conclusion

The Court held that bank-fraud liability under § 1344(2) does not depend on proving intent to defraud a bank; it depends on proof that the defendant sought bank-controlled property and used false representations as the means of obtaining it, with a meaningful causal link to the bank’s release of funds.


Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351 (2014)