Opinion ID: 12985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: introduction

Text: 1 At all times material to this indictment First Bank Southwest, Amarillo, Texas (hereinafter 'FBS') and Boatmen's First National Bank, Amarillo, Texas (hereinafter 'BFNB') were financial institutions with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 2 Beginning on or about September 9, 1996 and continuing to on or about October 30, 1996 in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere the defendant, MARIE ANTOINETTE OATES, devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and funds owned by and under the custody and control of FBS and BFNB by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, well knowing at the time that the pretenses, representations, and promises would be and were false when made; the scheme and artifice so devised and intended to be devised being in substance as follows: 3 It was part of the said scheme and artifice to defraud that: a. Defendant MARIE ANTOINETTE OATES was employed as a companion for Margaret E. Mills. b. Defendant MARIE ANTOINETTE OATES, in her position as a companion to Margaret E. Mills, had access to various personal records and documents of Ms. Mills. c. Defendant MARIE ANTOINETTE OATES, on three separate occasions, fraudulently obtained funds from Margaret E. Mills' Checking Account Number 601118041 held at FBS, Amarillo, Texas, by preparing an account debit, presenting an FBS teller with the debit, and receiving the withdrawn funds. The withdrawals totaled $9,500.000. d. On or about October 30, 1996, Defendant MARIE ANTOINETTE OATES attempted to negotiate a $50,000 Time Deposit Agreement issued by BFNB to Margaret E. Mills or Rob O. Mills by presenting such to a BFNB employee. COUNT 1 1 The Grand Jury realleges all of the allegations contained in the Introduction of the Indictment as if fully set forth herein 2 On or about September and October, 1996, in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas, defendant, MARIE ANTOINETTE OATES, knowingly executed and attempted to execute the scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and funds by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, in that the Defendant attempted to negotiate at Boatmen's First National Bank, Amarillo, Texas a $50,000.000 Time Deposit Agreement issued to Margaret E. Mills or Rob O. Mills; and the Defendant caused funds to be withdrawn from the Checking Account of Margaret E. Mills at First Bank Southwest, Amarillo, Texas, on at least three separate occasions withe the total amount paid by FBS to the Defendant exceeding $9,500.00, as described and set out below: DATE BANK AMOUNT 09/09/96 FBS $ 4,000.00 09/16/96 FBS 2,500.00 09/18/96 FBS 3,000.00 10/30/96 BFNB 50,000.00 All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344. 2 The district court applied both a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2) for more than minimal planning and an additional two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b) because Oates knew or should have known that [Mills] was unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or that [Mills] was otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct. Oates appeals neither such increase 3 Oates acknowledges on brief that while the trial court was entitled to determine, under U.S.S.G. § 2[F]1.1, that Oates attempted a theft of some portion of the $50,000 certificate of deposit, it erred in denying Oates a three-point reduction in offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 for what was clearly an attempt. 4 Oates does not challenge the characterization of the endorsed time deposit agreement in her factual resume as a negotiable instrument. Nor, for that matter, does the government challenge Oates' implicit contention that she could have presented the endorsed instrument to the bank for incremental redemption 5 Oates' claim that, because she may have withdrawn funds in smaller amounts over time (as she had when she fraudulently withdrew $9500 in funds from Ms. Mills' checking account over the course of nine days, but had not completely depleted that account, leaving about $500 in it), her intent could not have been to take the entire $50,000, is without merit. Whether, after Oates fraudulently gained access to funds that did not belong to her, she had planned to milk her fraud over time through subsequent (and equally fraudulent) withdrawals or had planned instead to withdraw the money in full immediately does not alter the fact that the entire amount of the deposit was placed at risk by her intentional, fraudulent act. One who fraudulently endorses a financial instrument by definition intends to gain access to the funds it represents. In this context, such access to funds is dispositive. Fraudulent access to funds achieved by a false and fraudulent making or endorsement of a check or certificate of deposit represents a very real loss to both the individual victim and the financial institution that the federal bank fraud statute was designed to protect. How Oates planned to utilize this fraudulently obtained access is simply immaterial to the proper application of section 2F1.1(b)(1) here 6 U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part: If an attempt, decrease by 3 levels, unless the defendant completed all the acts the defendant believed necessary for successful completion of the substantive offense or the circumstances demonstrate that the defendant was about to complete such acts but for apprehension or interruption by some similar event beyond the defendant's control. Substantive offense is defined in the Application Note to mean the offense that the defendant was convicted of soliciting, attempting, or conspiring to commit. U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 comment n. 2.