United States v. Mohsin Raza, 876 F.3d 604

Four former SunTrust Annandale employees (Raza, Humaira Iqbal, Farukh Iqbal, Haider) were indicted and convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and several substantive wire‑fraud counts based on fraudulent mortgage applications submitted between 2006–2007.
The scheme involved preparing loan applications with fabricated employment, income, and asset documents (including false W‑2s and pay stubs produced by a cooperating tax preparer) to induce SunTrust to fund 25 loans on 13 properties.
Prosecution evidence included cooperating co‑conspirators, borrowers who disavowed the false information, documentation tying false documents to the defendants, and a SunTrust underwriting official explaining the importance of accurate application data.
Defense evidence sought to show SunTrust’s lending practices downplayed application information (originate‑to‑sell model) and that lenders often ignored such misstatements, arguing materiality and risk of loss were lacking.
The district court instructed the jury on five elements for wire fraud (scheme, use of wire, material misrepresentation, intent to defraud, effect on financial institution) using an objective materiality standard; defendants preserved objections and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Materiality standard for wire fraud against a private lender	Gov’t: objective "reasonable lender" test is correct; Neder/Wolf support objective standard	Defs: court should have required subjective proof that misstatements actually mattered to SunTrust (relying on Universal Health)	Rejected defendants; court affirmed objective reasonable‑lender materiality standard and found instructions correct
Intent to defraud instruction wording	Gov’t: charge as whole required intent to deprive/value and was adequate; any error harmless	Defs: wording (“deceive or to cheat”) permitted conviction for mere deception without intent to deprive	Rejected defendants; viewed charge as a whole (like Wynn) and held intent instruction adequate; harmless if any error
Requirement to instruct jury to consider each defendant/count individually	Gov’t: trial charge, verdict forms, and supplemental note reply covered individual consideration	Defs: court abused discretion by not giving proposed pre‑deliberation instruction; risk of guilt by association	Rejected defendants; court adequately instructed unanimity per count per defendant and gave clarifying supplemental instruction during deliberations

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (distinguishes materiality standards for government targets vs. private lenders and endorses objective test for private‑lender fraud)
Universal Health Servs. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016) (discusses materiality in FCA context as focused on effect on recipient’s likely/actual behavior)
United States v. Wolf, 860 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2017) (applies objective reasonable‑lender materiality test in bank‑fraud context)
United States v. Lindsey, 850 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2017) (applies objective materiality to lender fraud and rejects defense based on lender’s negligent practices)
United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890 (4th Cir. 2000) (materiality judged by what a reasonable financial institution would want to know)
United States v. Wynn, 684 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 2012) (instructions on intent to defraud must be read as a whole; intent requires design to deprive of money/property)
Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (materiality standard emphasizing influence on particular government decisionmaking body)