Opinion ID: 494142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Statement Concerning Ryan's Other Debts.

Text: 44 Finally, we reject Ryan's argument that the statement concerning his other debts was literally true and incapable of supporting a conviction under Bronston. As noted earlier, it is unclear whether Bronston applies to cases arising under Sec. 1014, but assuming that it does apply, it is inapposite to the facts at hand. In Bronston, the defendant's unresponsive answer was true and complete on its face. Bronston, 409 U.S. at 359, 93 S.Ct. at 600. The questioner would not have had to look beyond the answer itself in order to realize that it was actually a response to a question that was never asked. Ryan's response, however, was neither true nor complete on its face. The question asked Ryan to LIST ALL OUTSTANDING DEBTS (emphasis added). He responded by listing his outstanding mortgage but failed to list nearly two million dollars in other outstanding obligations. Nothing on the face of the answer would indicate that it was incomplete or responsive to any question other than the one that was actually asked. The question asked for ALL. Ryan listed some but clearly not ALL. It would require Orwellian verbal gymnastics to conclude that this response is literally true. We, of course, will not engage in such an exercise. 45 Ryan complains, however, that later on the application he responded affirmatively to the question, Does applicant owe other creditors? According to Ryan, this later response negates the falsity of his earlier answer concerning his outstanding debts. We cannot agree. A truthful answer to a question in one section of the application does not unring the bell that was activated by a false answer in another section. The other creditors question does not immediately follow nor explicitly refer to the LIST ALL OUTSTANDING DEBTS question. Thus, Ryan's affirmative response to the other creditors question would not necessarily alert the bank to the falsity of his previous answer to the LIST ALL OUTSTANDING DEBTS question. 5 Of course, on remand Ryan may attempt to establish that he intended to so alert the bank. While the establishment of this fact would not negate the falsity of his answer concerning his outstanding debts, it would tend to indicate a lack of criminal intent.