United States v. Gyanbaah
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23225
2d Cir.2012Background
- Nkansah was part of a ring from 2005 to 2008 that stole identity information to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns and secure IRS refunds.
- Refunds were issued as checks or electronically deposited into bank accounts controlled by ring members, with forged endorsements to withdraw proceeds.
- Nkansah was linked to deposits and accounts at Commerce Bank, HSBC, and Bank of America, including a William K. Arthur account funded by forged Treasury checks.
- A major evidence trail tied nearly 70 fraudulent returns to an IP address registered to Nkansah; some refunds were substantial and moved via accounts Nkansah controlled.
- He was arrested in 2008, faced five counts (conspiracy to file false claims, filing false claims, bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and identity theft), and was convicted on all five counts in 2010.
- The district court sentenced largely to concurrent terms for Counts 1–3 and 5, with Count 4 running consecutively, and the government later discovered trial-deliberation-related missteps involving extraneous material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for bank fraud | Nkansah intended to harm the banks; the banks bore loss exposure evidence. | No proven intent to harm banks; no well-known bank-loss exposure for specific deposits. | Count Three vacated; insufficient evidence of intent to victimize banks |
| Extrinsic evidence provided to jury | Proffer agreement shown to jury could prejudice; error, if any, plain. | No objection; district court properly handled; plain error analysis applies. | No plain error; instructions harmless |
| Omission of interstate commerce element from Count Five | Indictment omission prejudicial; interstate element missing | Notice provided; no substantial prejudice; grand jury not violated | No reversible error; substantial rights not violated |
| Unreasonableness of sentence | Use of intended loss over actual loss inflated; disparity with co-defendants | Guideline calculations appropriate; variance justified by trial posture | Convictions on Counts Three and Four vacated; remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 643 (2d Cir. 1999) (bank fraud intent to victimize required)
- United States v. Crisci, 273 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2001) (bank fraud exposure to loss evidence)
- United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) (bank liability and release of funds)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 140 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 1998) (bank exposure to loss as a permissive inference)
- United States v. Laljie, 184 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 1999) (impact of risk exposure on bank fraud conviction)
- United States v. Blackmon, 839 F.2d 900 (2d Cir. 1988) (intent to harm bank as implied element of §1344; initial standard)
- United States v. Kenrick, 221 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2000) (interpretation of §1344 intent to defraud a bank vs harm)
- United States v. Leahy, 445 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2006) (requires victimization focus for §1344 in some circuits)
- United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2006) (varied circuit interpretations of §1344 mental state)
- United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395 (Supreme Court 1974) (foreseeability requirement in mail/wraud contexts)