United States v. Kowalski, 1:19-cr-00226

Miroslaw Krejza was convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and aiding and abetting embezzlement by a bank officer in connection with fraudulent loan activities at Washington Federal Bank for Savings.
The scheme involved disbursing loans to certain individuals (including Krejza) without proper documentation, using bank funds for personal expenses, and falsifying bank records to conceal the improper nature and nonperformance of the loans.
Key evidence included testimony from co-conspirators and bank employees regarding unauthorized disbursements, fabricated paperwork, and witness manipulation of bank records, as well as financial records showing Krejza's misuse of funds and misstatements on official forms.
Krejza filed motions for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, government arguments/trial procedures, and the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
The Court denied both his motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new trial, as well as a belated motion to amend his filings.

Issue	Krejza's Argument	Government's Argument	Held (Court's Ruling)
Sufficiency of Evidence for Conspiracy	Evidence does not show knowledge/agreement to falsify or embezzle; asserted loans were just bad, not fraudulent, debts.	Evidence shows Krejza knowingly joined a scheme to fraudulently obtain/embezzle funds and falsify records.	Sufficient evidence supports conspiracy conviction; verdict not contrary to weight of evidence.
Aiding & Abetting Embezzlement	Gembara did not personally receive funds, so underlying embezzlement offense not committed; no aiding/abetting possible.	Embezzlement requires only fraudulent conversion by one in lawful possession, not personal gain by Gembara.	Law does not require principal to receive direct funds; aiding/abetting embezzlement conviction upheld.
Jury Unanimity & Variance	Alternative government theory denied right to unanimous verdict and varied from indictment theory.	Argument forfeited by not raising at trial; jury required to agree on key elements, not specific acts.	No error; unanimity required only for elements, not means; claims either forfeited or not substantiated.
Evidentiary Rulings (Prior Loans, Exhibits)	Excluding evidence of prior repaid loans, and admitting certain government exhibits, was erroneous and prejudicial.	Evidence of prior loans not relevant and would confuse jury; exhibits admissible and relevant.	Prior loan evidence properly excluded; exhibits properly admitted; no reversible error in evidentiary rulings.

United States v. Filer, 56 F.4th 421 (7th Cir. 2022) (sets standard for judgment of acquittal on insufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Foy, 50 F.4th 616 (7th Cir. 2022) (elaborates on sufficiency of evidence and inferences in conspiracy cases)
United States v. McAnally, 666 F.2d 1116 (7th Cir. 1981) (discusses elements of false entry and intent requirements)
United States v. Parker, 716 F.3d 999 (7th Cir. 2013) (states elements for bank embezzlement)
United States v. Jackson, 33 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 1994) (clarifies intent to defraud in bank fraud context)
United States v. Holland, 831 F.2d 717 (7th Cir. 1987) (intent to repay is irrelevant to embezzlement)
United States v. Freed, 921 F.3d 716 (7th Cir. 2019) (details aiding and abetting standard)
United States v. Irwin, 149 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 1998) (circumstantial evidence sufficient for intent to aid/abet)
United States v. Beck, 615 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1980) (must show shared criminal intent for aiding/abetting)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020) (jury unanimity requirement)
United States v. Harris, 498 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2007) (admits prior acts only for proper purposes)