## Facts

- Ross pursued a real-estate transaction with purported investors and received an initial check that proved counterfeit, contributing to major losses and his personal bankruptcy.
- A second purported investor later sent Ross two additional checks connected to the same deal; Ross learned one was counterfeit after contacting the drawee and learned the other was counterfeit after depositing it.
- After Ross deposited a counterfeit instrument, a bank investigator warned him that his dealings involving “Nigerians” were likely a scam.
- Ross later wrote that he researched Nigerian scams online, believed the people involved were likely scammers, and continued because “greed” motivated him.
- A bank later received and deposited into Ross’s corporate account a United States Treasury check connected to the same dealings; it was also counterfeit.
- Ross used the Treasury-check proceeds to buy cashier’s checks to pay personal and business debts and to transfer funds into an investment account opened about a month earlier.
- Federal agents interviewed Ross, and he provided a written statement describing his transactions and his awareness of likely fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross knowingly executed or attempted a scheme to defraud a financial institution, including knowledge that the Treasury check was counterfeit and intent to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed Ross’s bank-fraud convictions.
- The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find knowledge and intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court relied on Ross’s repeated exposure to counterfeit checks, explicit warnings, his continued participation, his rapid use of proceeds, and his written admissions.
- A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part, but the judgment affirming the convictions remained intact.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is viewed in the government’s favor.
- Knowledge and intent to defraud may be proven through circumstantial evidence, including a defendant’s course of conduct and responses to warnings and prior fraudulent events.
- A jury may infer fraudulent intent where a defendant proceeds with transactions after learning similar instruments are counterfeit and after receiving explicit warnings of a scam.
- A defendant’s own statements acknowledging awareness of likely fraud and proceeding for personal gain can strongly support findings of knowledge and intent.
- Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility where the jury had a reasonable basis to draw the inference of guilt.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Ross’s bank-fraud convictions because the evidence—including repeated counterfeit checks tied to the same dealings, direct warnings of a scam, rapid deployment of funds from the Treasury check, and Ross’s admissions—permitted a rational jury to find that he knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud a bank and acted with the required intent under federal law.


United States v. Ross, 502 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2007)