Opinion ID: 153666
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant Sealander's Conviction for Bank Fraud

Text: 22 Defendant Sealander asserts that the evidence of intent to defraud a financial institution was insufficient to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(1), 2(b). Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law which we review de novo. United States v. Markum, 4 F.3d 891, 893 (10th Cir.1993). Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence allows a rational trier of fact to conclude that the government proved the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Issues of credibility are within the jury's province, and it may draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 23 Title 18 U.S.C. § 1344 provides in relevant part, Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice--(1) to defraud a financial institution ... shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. As defined by Congress, [T]he term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. 18 U.S.C. § 1346. Mr. Sealander was also prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), which provides, Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. Thus, in this case the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sealander knowingly executed or attempted to execute the scheme charged, or that he willfully caused its execution with the intent to defraud the bank. 24 The evidence showed the following: Mr. Sealander was aware of the business from its beginnings; he had prior business ventures with Mr. Veatch; he knew Mr. Veatch was using Mr. Dion's name after he had died; he managed Dion Enterprises and knew about overbilling on the credit cards charged at Security National Bank; and he signed a signature card at Central Bank, leases, and a wire transfer. In short, the record is replete with evidence that Mr. Sealander had the necessary criminal intent and, in fact, participated in a scheme to defraud Security National Bank. Thus, sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Mr. Sealander was guilty of bank fraud. 25