Opinion ID: 665997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fiduciary Duties and Bank Fraud

Text: 26 Henderson's second sufficiency argument focuses on the bank fraud count for the 1985 FB & T loan to Dr. Howard. Henderson contends that this case involves nothing more than a breach of fiduciary duty, and therefore, does not constitute a scheme or artifice to defraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344. We disagree. 27 In the first place, this case involves more than a breach of fiduciary duty. Henderson's activities violated federal banking regulations and exposed FB & T to civil penalties. Further, Henderson did more than sit quietly by while the FB & T Board approved a loan in which he was interested. Henderson had an obligation to avoid participating in any bank transactions that affected him personally. Henderson was also obliged to inform the Board of Directors of his interest--however he defined it--in the Jones Road real estate. Finally, Henderson had a duty to abstain from the Board vote on the Jones Road loans. 28 There was also evidence that Henderson took active steps to keep his agreement with Dr. Howard concealed. Howard testified that Henderson wanted their agreement oral so that no one could trace the loan back to Henderson. Henderson accepted Howard's financial statements without question, even though those statements clearly indicated that Howard had a silent partner paying half the loan costs. Finally, there was evidence that Henderson created bogus letters to characterize his interest in the Jones Road property as an option. There was sufficient evidence to allow a rational juror to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Henderson's actions constituted a scheme or artifice to defraud FB & T. 7