Opinion ID: 167108
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: statements alleged in count 2

Text: 69 Mr. Wittig also argues that, contrary to the allegations of count 2, the statements in the April 27, 2001 loan proposal were not false. He observes that the loan proposal stated one of the purposes of the $1.5 million increase in his line of credit was to make business investments. Wittig App. at 524. According to Mr. Wittig, his $1.5 million loan to Mr. Weidner, on which he charged 7 percent interest, was such a business investment, and thus the loan proposal did not contain a false statement. 70 But the policy underlying § 1005 is to ensure that an inspection of the bank's books will yield an accurate picture of its condition. Darby, 289 U.S. at 226, 53 S.Ct. 573; Cordell, 912 F.2d at 773. As a result, a material omission from a document may constitute a false entry. Cordell, 912 F.2d at 773 (stating that an omission of material information relating to matters which should be disclosed in order to show a true picture of the transactions involved, as well as an actual misstatement, qualifies as a false entry under the statute). Here, even though, in broad terms, one could arguably characterize Mr. Wittig's loan to Mr. Weidner as a business investment, the proposal addressed in count 2 omitted a key material fact about the requested line of credit increase for Mr. Wittig — that it was really for Mr. Weidner, who wanted to use it for an investment that Mr. Wittig had expressly turned down. Thus, the government presented sufficient evidence of a false entry under § 1005. 71