Shaw v. United States
| Shaw v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 4, 2016 Decided December 12, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Lawrence Eugene Shaw, Petitioner v. United States |
| Docket no. | 15-5991 |
| Citations | 580 U.S. 63 (more) 137 S. Ct. 462; 196 L. Ed. 2d 372 |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Shaw, 781 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2015) |
| Holding | |
| A scheme to defraud customers also deprives the bank of money in which the bank held a "property right"; therefore, criminal defendants may be convicted under the federal bank-fraud statute for schemes to defraud bank customers. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| 18 U.S.C. § 1344 | |
Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. 63 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case tin which the court held that a scheme to defraud customers also deprives the bank of money in which the bank held a "property right"; therefore, criminal defendants may be convicted under the federal bank-fraud statute for schemes to defraud bank customers.[1][2]
Background
Lawrence Shaw received the information from a bank account at Bank of America that belonged to a customer, Stanley Hsu. Shaw used that information to take money from Hsu but did not directly steal from the bank. Shaw was convicted under a federal statute criminalizing fraud against banks and appealed, arguing his target was its customer.
Decision
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court held that a scheme to defraud customers also deprives the bank of money in which the bank held a "property right", and criminal defendants may therefore be convicted under the federal statute for schemes to defraud bank customers.[3] However, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to determine whether the trial court administered an erroneous jury instruction.[4]
References
External links
- Text of Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2016) is available from: Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)