United States v. Mirza Ali, AKA Zulfiqar Eqbal, AKA Henry Stone

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]estimony is insufficient ... when stated only in the present tense at trial, years after the relevant time period, because it cannot establish that the bank was insured on the date of the alleged offense”
• holding that “[t]estimony is insufficient . . . when stated only in the present tense at trial, years after the relevant time period, because it cannot establish that the bank was insured on the date of the alleged offense”
• finding that the government failed to prove the bank was a federally insured financial institution at the time of the offense
• no inference of FDIC coverage could be drawn based on testimony “solely in the present tense at trial, well over two years after the time of the alleged offense”
• no inference of FDIC coverage could be drawn based on testimony “solely in the present tense at trial, well over two years after the time of the alleged offense”
• “[A] bank employee’s uncontradicted testimony of a bank’s insured status can sufficiently support the jury’s conclusion that this element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).