Opinion ID: 529953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Bank Record Charges

Text: 41 Counts V, VI, and VII of the indictment charged Furst with making false statements in bank records in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1005. The relevant portion of this section provides that: Whoever makes any false entry in any book, report, or statement of [any subject bank] with intent to injure or defraud such bank, or any other company, body politic or corporate [is guilty of a crime]. 42 The allegedly false statements related to the distribution of the proceeds from one of the two sales between accounts that constituted the subject of the embezzlement charges. 11 Specifically, each of the three counts relates to a similar statement in three different accounts accompanying the distribution of the December, 1985, gain generated in the Rocking Horse trades. Counts V, VI, and VII related to the WF-Waldron account numbered 71093-50-4, the WF-Graham account numbered 71088-83-5, and the WF-Snowden account numbered 71089-98-1, respectively. See supra note 7. 43 In particular, Furst is charged with having represented that the funds generated from the internal stock trades which he distributed to accounts that had invested in FCCB/FFCM were in fact returns from the FCCB/FFCM investment. With respect to these counts Furst contends that the district court erred in failing to acquit him as a matter of law. 44 Our standard of review is whether the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, contains substantial evidence to support the jury's determination of guilt. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. at 80, 62 S.Ct. at 469; United States v. Aguilar, 843 F.2d at 157. 45 On December 26, 1985, Furst traded Rocking Horse shares from one fund he controlled, Stock Fund A, to the WOA Escrow account at $3.25 per share, a price reflecting the original purchase price with market interest from the date of purchase. Furst then traded the shares from WOA Escrow to Stock Funds 1 and B at $4.35 per share. Furst then distributed $291,133.70 of the gain generated in WOA Escrow by virtue of the difference in the prices to other accounts within the Williamsport Foundation (WF) over which he also had investment control. 12 46 The distribution of the $291,133.70 gain was actually made by Neidig, an NC Bank employee, who reported to Furst. At trial the government's theory of counts V, VI and VII was that [a]lthough Furst himself did not actually print false statements, he caused the offenses to be committed by his administrative assistant, Mr. Neidig. Brief of appellee at 40-41. 47 It is undisputed that Neidig, not Furst, completed the paperwork and various trading tickets and forms involved in the two transactions. Neidig handwrote a memorandum in which he instructed the operations department of the trust division to make cash transfers from the WOA Escrow account to the various WF accounts with the following explanation: Proceeds from termination of First Commodity Corp. Multiple Futures Commodities Program # 2. 13 The explanation of the source of the funds constituted a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1005. 48 Thus, the question presented is whether Furst caused Neidig to make this false statement. Neidig testified that although Furst did not provide all the language used in the false report, Furst explained the transaction to Neidig and Neidig drafted the language based on that understanding. See appellant's app. at 325-26, 330-31, 333-34, 375. Neidig further testified that the use of the language that falsely reported the source of the funds was not entirely his, id. at 377, and some portion was provided by Furst, because Neidig was not familiar with commodity securities, and didn't know what a termination contract probably would have been at the time. Id. Finally, Neidig stated that the concept behind those transactions and the wording of them came as a result of the conversation [he had with Furst] regarding the trades. Id. at 384. 49 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it does not appear that the district court erred in allowing this issue to go to the jury inasmuch as the jury could have concluded that, as Neidig testified, Furst caused the false statements to be made by explaining that the transactions represented the closing of the FCCB/FFCM investments. Thus, the district court did not err in failing to acquit Furst of these charges.