Mazzaro De Abreu v. Bank of America Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Bank of America had not “substantially assisted” a massive fraud, even though its accounts were used to perpetrate the scheme and it violated its own internal policies and federal regulations in approving fraudulent transactions
• explaining that while patterns of bank transfers and low balances gave rise to inferences of fraud, they at most indicated constructive knowledge of a fraudulent scheme
• dismissing aiding and abetting claim under New York law because plaintiff did not establish that defendant knew of the fiduciary relationship at issue
• dismissing aiding and abetting claim under New York law because plaintiff did not establish that defendant knew of the fiduciary relationship at issue
• finding actual knowledge where the plaintiffs alleged that a BOA employee suggested to the perpetrator of the fraud \that it `more effectively could conceal the fraud by opening a separate bank account.'\
• finding actual knowledge where the plaintiffs alleged that a BOA employee suggested to the perpetrator of the fraud “that it ‘more effectively could conceal the fraud by opening a separate bank account.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).