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: http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Guidry_v_BankofLaPlace.php