Banks, Shaw v United States

Financial Services Report - Spring 2017

Morrison & Foerster LLP on 3/20/2017

EDITOR’S NOTE - In like a lion, out like a lamb—it works for weather; does it work for new administrations? We’ll have to wait and see. We’ll have to wait and see about the length of CFPB Director Richard Cordray’s...more

"2016-17 Supreme Court Update"

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on 1/31/2017

In a season of political surprises, the eight-member U.S. Supreme Court has stirred no controversy with its decisions so far this term. The handful of opinions the Court released in the fall were unanimous and, for the most...more

U.S. Supreme Court Weighs In on Bank Fraud

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on 1/25/2017

Weighing in on the bank fraud statute, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the government to hold that the bank had a property interest in the customer's deposits, and the law does not require proof that the bank suffered...more

The Supreme Court’s Broad Interpretation of the Bank Fraud Statute May Provide a Potent Tool in Combatting Cybercrime

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP on 12/20/2016

The Supreme Court in Shaw v. United States recently held that the federal bank fraud statute does not require that defendants cause, or intend to cause, an actual financial loss to the financial institutions they seek to...more

Supreme Court Considers the Necessary Intent for Bank Fraud

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on 10/28/2016

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument (on October 4) in Shaw v. U.S., a case that will allow the Justices to decide whether proving a scheme to defraud a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1) requires proving...more

Bank Fraud Statute Returns to Supreme Court

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on 5/19/2016

Does the federal bank fraud statute require proof of an intent to deceive a bank as well as cheat it out of some of its funds? What happened - The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer this question in Shaw v....more