,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
@maddow asked a question about Trump and his apparent defrauding of @DeutscheBankAG when the bank knew his financials were fraudulent. I checked and the jury instruction does not require proving the bank was harmed. But it must be federally insured. Not clear DB subsidiary was.
I found this one from Maine but I think it is consistent with current case law. At the end you see the comment about not needing to prove a bank injury.
med.uscourts.gov/pdf/crpjilinks…
med.uscourts.gov/pdf/crpjilinks…
Not the end: Here it is:
"The government need not prove that the scheme was successful, that the financial institutions suffered a financial loss, that the defendant knew that the victim of the scheme was a federally insured financial
"The government need not prove that the scheme was successful, that the financial institutions suffered a financial loss, that the defendant knew that the victim of the scheme was a federally insured financial
institution [federal reserve bank; member of the federal reserve system] or that
the defendant secured a financial gain"
the defendant secured a financial gain"
