## Facts

- Maurice H. Doke, a real estate developer, and Larry W. Bass, Doke’s attorney and a bank director, arranged financing connected to a speculative real estate option purchase in Houston.
- A Doke-controlled entity held an expiring option to repurchase a 6.028-acre parcel for nearly $788,000 and moved to exercise it in July 1985.
- Bass sought and obtained a $600,000 loan from Champions Point National Bank to fund the purchase.
- At closing, the parcel was sold to a Doke entity and immediately resold to Bass for the same price, positioning Bass as the borrower and titled owner.
- The government alleged the loan was a nominee loan: nominally to Bass but effectively for Doke, and that Bass did not disclose Doke’s continuing involvement and interest to the bank.
- Doke supplied the $200,000 down payment and, for roughly two years, provided Bass the funds used to make each semiannual loan payment.
- After market collapse, Bass sought to restructure the loan without mentioning Doke; the bank refused, the loan went into default, and the bank foreclosed.
- The bank later failed and entered FDIC receivership; regulators could not locate Bass’s credit file, and both Bass (as a director) and Doke (as a significant shareholder) were treated as insiders for regulatory purposes.
- A jury convicted both defendants of conspiracy, bank fraud, and two counts of making false statements to a bank; they appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for bank fraud and false statements, including whether concealment of Doke’s insider involvement and the nominee structure was material.
2. Whether alleged juror nondisclosure or circumstances established actual or implied bias warranting removal or a new trial under McDonough standards.
3. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Doke competent to stand trial.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions and the district court’s rulings.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find that Bass and Doke knowingly concealed Doke’s continuing involvement and that the concealment supported bank fraud and false-statement convictions.
- The court found no showing of actual or implied juror bias sufficient to support a challenge for cause; the defendants did not satisfy McDonough’s requirements.
- The court held the competency finding was not clearly erroneous because the record supported that Doke could consult with counsel and understood the proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A nominee-loan scheme can constitute bank fraud where the borrower structure conceals the true interested party and insider involvement from a federally insured bank.
- Materiality for bank fraud and false-statement offenses includes concealment that affects a bank’s legal and regulatory exposure, not only the borrower’s credit risk or collateral value.
- To obtain relief for juror nondisclosure, a defendant must show dishonest answers to material voir dire questions and that truthful answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause (requiring actual or implied bias).
- A defendant is competent to stand trial if he has sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings; appellate review is for clear error.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the convictions because the record supported a finding that the defendants concealed a materially significant insider nominee-loan arrangement, and it found no reversible error based on juror bias allegations or the trial court’s determination that Doke was competent to stand trial.


United States v. Doke, 171 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1999)