Opinion ID: 167108
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Refusal to Give Instruction Regarding Third Party Loans

Text: 107 In a final challenge to the jury instructions, Mr. Wittig argues that the district court erred in refusing to give an instruction stating that nominee loans (loans on behalf of a third person) are not per se illegal. 108 We discern no grounds for reversal here. Viewed as a whole, the instructions properly focused the jury on the key issue—whether Mr. Wittig and Mr. Weidner misled Capital City Bank officials. As the government persuasively argues, to have given the jury a simple instruction that nominee loans are not per se illegal would have been an incomplete statement of the law: nominee loans are illegal when the borrower and bank officer make false statements or omit material information in order to obtain the funds. Whether the defendants made such statements and omitted such information was the issue contested here, and Mr. Wittig's per se instruction was not necessary to inform the jury of the relevant legal principles. 109