Opinion ID: 2183692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the question whether heritage was a bank

Text: The defendant argues that the five counts relating to embezzlement should have been dismissed because these counts alleged that he had embezzled moneys from Heritage in violation of G.L. 1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-41-11. This section declares it unlawful for an officer, agent, or servant of any bank, savings bank or trust company    [to] embezzle or appropriate to his [or her] own use any moneys, goods, effects or funds of any bank, savings bank or trust company. The defendant suggests that the key phrase is of any bank, savings bank or trust company. He contends that he was never an officer of a bank, a savings bank, or a trust company. In sum defendant argues that Heritage was not a bank as the term is defined in § 11-41-11. Rather he suggests Heritage was merely a loan and investment company. The trial justice rejected a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon this argument on the ground that so to construe the statute would lead to an absurd result. In further support of this argument, defendant launches into a lengthy argument concerning amendments to G.L. 1956 (1989 Reenactment) chapter 19 of title 19, that took place during the year 1990. The short answer to this argument is that it is undisputed that Heritage was formed pursuant to chapter 20 of title 19, entitled Loan and Investment Companies. It can also scarcely be disputed that during the period in question a critical portion of this chapter was § 19-20-27. This section reads as follows: Loan and investment banks. Any corporation organized under the provisions of this chapter shall be considered a loan and investment bank. In light of this plain and unambiguous statement defining a loan and investment corporation as a bank, it is unnecessary to respond to the lengthy and complex argument raised by defendant. It is equally unnecessary to comment upon the state's arguments relating to the nature of loan and investment companies or the fact that Heritage did virtually everything that a bank would be entitled to do as set forth in Bowen for an Opinion, 68 R.I. 200, 27 A.2d 181 (1942). The state points out that Heritage had all the powers that would be conferred upon a bank, including the power that it did not exercise, to offer checking accounts. Nevertheless it is well settled in this state that when the meaning of a statute is plain and unambiguous, the task of judicial construction is at an end. State v. Young, 519 A.2d 587, 588 (R.I. 1987); City of Warwick v. Aptt, 497 A.2d 721, 724 (R.I. 1985); Moore v. Rhode Island Share and Deposit Indemnity Corp., 495 A.2d 1003, 1004 (R.I. 1985). The language of § 19-20-27 clearly defines such institutions as Heritage as loan and investment banks. No ambiguity may be derived from this plain statement. Consequently the trial justice was clearly correct in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that Heritage was not a bank.