United States v. Jack B. Rackley

How courts have described this case

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

• \Section 1344 was intended to reach a wide range of fraudulent activity that undermines the integrity of the federal banking system.\ (citations omitted)
• “Section 1344 was intended to reach a wide range of fraudulent activity that undermines the integrity of the federal banking system.” (citations omitted)
• “In order to convict the defendant of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the government was required to prove . . . that the financial institution was then insured by the [FDIC].”
• “In order to convict the defendant of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the government was required to prove . . . that the financial institution was then insured by the [FDIC].”
• “Defendant confuses the notion of defrauding a federally insured bank with the idea of defrauding its owner or directors. It is the financial institution itself--not its directors or agents--that is the victim of the fraud the statute proscribes.”
• “We find defendant’s argument based on [Rule] 404(b) standards to be incorrect because the [challenged evidence admitted via] cross-examination ... was not 404(b) evidence. It went to the issue of the witnesses’ credibility, and was properly admitted as impeachment under [Rule] 611(b).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).