Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace , 661 So.2d 1052 (1996)

Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace


The Court of Appeals held that a bank couldn’t be held liable for aiding and abetting a pyramid scheme operated by one of its customers, absent intentional conduct on behalf of the bank. The bank customer sold interests in vacation packages that were financed by the future sales of vacation packages, with the proceeds used to pay off the earlier investors. The bank paid the checks used in the scheme. But because the bank customer intentionally operated the scheme without the knowledge of the illicit nature by the bank, it could not be held liable for aiding and abetting the scheme.

The case and case summary are available at:

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:State, 5th Circuit, Louisiana | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Babener & Associates | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Babener & Associates on:

Popular Topics
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.