Note that the statute speaks of a scheme . . . to defraud . . . Brandon , however, collapses this to the formulation in the instruction. The Government has to prove as to each count considered separately, that the alleged misrepresentation as charged in the indictment was made with the intent to defraud, that is, to advance the scheme or artifice to defraud. Such a scheme in each case has to be reasonably calculated to deceive a lender of ordinary prudence, ordinary care and comprehension. . . . . That may be malpractice, but it's not a crime.
Materiality is a question for the jury.
The definition of materiality is one the Supreme Court described apparently approvingly as agreed upon by the parties in Gaudin . Good faith is an absolute defense. A separate instruction is not required, see id ., but seems advisable.