## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the District of Connecticut indicted Jeffrey P. Bouyea and a co-defendant on three counts: (1) bank fraud involving Chester Bank; (2) wire fraud involving a $150,000 loan from Center Capital Corporation in a manner affecting Centerbank (Center Capital’s wholly owned parent); and (3) bank fraud involving Founders Bank.
- The wire-fraud count was based on Bouyea’s use of an interstate facsimile transmission in a scheme to obtain the $150,000 loan using false and forged documents.
- Center Capital funded Bouyea’s loan using money it borrowed from Centerbank.
- Center Capital incurred a loss on the transaction, which reduced Centerbank’s assets.
- After a five-day jury trial, Bouyea was acquitted on the Chester Bank count and convicted on the wire-fraud count and the Founders Bank bank-fraud count.
- The district court denied Bouyea’s post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, and sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment with restitution.
- On appeal, Bouyea argued the wire-fraud count was time-barred absent proof the offense “affected a financial institution,” and that evidence admitted on the wire-fraud count prejudicially spilled over onto the bank-fraud conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that the wire-fraud offense “affected a financial institution” under 18 U.S.C. § 3293(2), making the prosecution timely under the 10-year limitations period.
2. If the wire-fraud conviction failed, whether the bank-fraud conviction should be vacated due to prejudicial spillover or retroactive misjoinder from evidence admitted to prove the wire-fraud count.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding that the wire-fraud scheme affected Centerbank because the fraud on Center Capital (a wholly owned subsidiary) led to a reduction in Centerbank’s assets.
- Because the wire-fraud conviction was affirmed, the prejudicial spillover/retroactive misjoinder challenge to the bank-fraud conviction was moot; the court also indicated the spillover claim lacked merit given overlap in relevant proof.

## Legal Principles

- Wire fraud ordinarily need not involve a financial institution, but the extended limitations period in 18 U.S.C. § 3293(2) applies only if the offense “affects a financial institution.”
- Defrauding a financial institution’s wholly owned subsidiary can “affect” the financial institution when the fraud causes a reduction in the parent institution’s assets; that relationship and resulting asset loss is sufficient as a matter of law for § 3293(2).
- In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court considers whether a rational jury could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
- When all counts are sustained, claims that a conviction on one count should be reversed due to spillover from another count generally fail; if the predicate count remains valid, spillover arguments premised on its invalidity are moot.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that a wire-fraud scheme affecting a bank’s wholly owned subsidiary affects the bank itself when the subsidiary’s loss reduces the bank’s assets, thereby triggering § 3293(2)’s 10-year statute of limitations and supporting affirmance of the wire-fraud conviction and the remaining bank-fraud conviction.


United States v. Bouyea, 152 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 1998)