89 F.4th 1010
7th Cir.2024Background
- Patrick Thompson took out three loans from Washington Federal Bank for Savings totaling $219,000 (plus interest), signing paperwork only for the initial $110,000 loan.
- After the bank's failure, the FDIC became its receiver and hired Planet Home Lending to service the outstanding loans, contacting Thompson about the balance (including interest) which he disputed.
- Thompson made statements to Planet Home and the FDIC in which he appeared to understate his total loan balance, claiming only to have borrowed $110,000 and expressing ignorance at the higher amount sought by FDIC, despite evidence he knew of the higher debt.
- The FDIC settled with Thompson for the principal amount only ($219,000) due to poor record-keeping by the original bank and Thompson's insistence that he did not owe interest.
- Thompson was indicted and convicted on two counts of making false statements to influence a financial institution under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, as well as separate tax crimes (not challenged on appeal), and was ordered to pay restitution for the unpaid interest ($50,120.58).
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misleading but literally true statements violate § 1014 | Statements were literally true, so not "false" under § 1014 | Misleading statements can violate § 1014 | Misleading statements are "false" under § 1014 (binding circuit precedent) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for false statement (loan amount/purpose) | Jury lacked sufficient evidence of falsity and intent | Ample evidence showed Thompson misrepresented amount and purpose to influence FDIC | Evidence sufficient to uphold both convictions |
| Constructive amendment of indictment | Proof at trial diverged from indictment's wording on "owed" vs. "borrowed" | Indictment and proof covered same offense; instructions protected defendant | No constructive amendment or prejudicial variance |
| Authority for restitution to FDIC | FDIC's loss wasn't caused by false statements but by practical settlement decisions | Thompson's misrepresentations led to losses/settlement | Restitution for interest proper as direct/proximate harm from Thompson's conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997) (Materiality not required under § 1014; discusses "false statement")
- Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279 (1982) (A check is not a factual assertion, so literal falsity doctrine explored)
- United States v. Freed, 921 F.3d 716 (7th Cir. 2019) (§ 1014 applies to misleading as well as literally false statements)
- United States v. Staniforth, 971 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds (Literal truth can be a defense only if not misleading)
- United States v. Phillips, 731 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2013) (Materiality is not an element under § 1014, but is relevant to intent to influence)