United States v. Williams
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14368
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Matthew Williams applied for a VA-backed mortgage using his father Earl Williams’s name, SSN, DOB, employment, and VA benefits falsehoods; he also submitted a forged earnings statement and a signed (undated) intent-to-proceed form.
- The bank mailed the application packet to Earl, who called to deny applying; bank staff were notified but instructed to continue processing.
- Bank personnel obtained a credit report and a VA certificate of eligibility based on the false identity and partially processed the file; the bank required photo ID and other documents before underwriting.
- The bank issued an initial and a final notice of incompleteness; Williams provided some documents on August 19 but never produced photo ID, and the bank later closed the file without advancing to underwriting or disbursing funds.
- A grand jury indicted Williams for bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344(1)) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A); a jury convicted on both counts and the Tenth Circuit affirmed on sufficiency review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality of false statements on an incomplete loan application | Government: false statements were capable of influencing the bank’s decision to grant a loan | Williams: incomplete application and lack of underwriting/closing meant statements could not influence bank decision (Camick analog) | Held: Statements were objectively capable of influencing the bank (material) — jury could find materiality beyond reasonable doubt |
| Risk of loss to the bank required for § 1344 conviction | Government: need only show potential risk of loss or exposure to civil liability | Williams: no actual loss; bank was alerted early and closed file — scheme was an incompetent attempt posing no real risk | Held: Potential risk of loss shown (credit report, VA certificate, false income, intent-to-proceed) — jury could find risk beyond reasonable doubt |
| Relevance of actual reliance by underwriter/decisionmaker | Government: actual reliance not required; capability to influence suffices | Williams: underwriter never reviewed file; bank decided not to approve early | Held: Actual reliance unnecessary; materiality and risk are objective inquiries; lack of underwriting review does not defeat conviction |
| Predicate for aggravated identity theft | Government: identity theft conviction depends on underlying felony (bank fraud) | Williams: challenges bank fraud sufficiency, which would undermine identity theft count | Held: Because bank fraud conviction is affirmed, aggravated identity theft conviction is also affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Camick, 796 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2015) (reversed fraud conviction where provisional patent filing was incapable of influencing PTO decision)
- United States v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2012) (materiality met where false financial info was capable of influencing lender despite lack of actual reliance)
- United States v. Young, 952 F.2d 1252 (10th Cir. 1991) (potential risk of loss suffices for bank fraud)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (materiality definition: natural tendency or capability to influence decision)
- United States v. Swanson, 360 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2004) (elements of § 1344 and requirement to show scheme to defraud a financial institution)
- United States v. Akers, 215 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 2000) (broad reach of § 1344 and discussion of risk-of-loss concept)
- United States v. Loughrin, 710 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2013) (discussing attempts and when schemes may be incompetent to cause risk)
- United States v. Mullins, 613 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2010) (potential risk of loss is sufficient and is a jury question)