Opinion ID: 202748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Original Indictment

Text: 95 We review de novo a district court's decision not to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. López-González v. Mun. of Comerío, 404 F.3d 548, 551 (1st Cir.2005). Here, the original indictment was returned on November 22, 1995. Appellants contend that the Board was fully informed of the practices at issue in two of the alleged violations—bank fraud and conspiracy on the Gutiérrez loans—by a regulator report dated August 31, 1985. Consequently, they argue, any deception in the scheme ended more than ten years prior to the original indictment, making the indictment untimely for those charges. 96 In light of the activities discussed in Section III, supra, most of which took place after November 22, 1985, appellants' argument overstates the significance of the regulator report in question. The report describes several Modules loans and expresses general concern about Modules' financial state. The report notes that the loans are considered to be substandard loans subject to special comment since the future viability of the main borrower, Modules, could be impaired by uncertainties involving the collectibility of an accounts receivable due from an affiliated party. These general statements do nothing to inform the Board of such practices as the use of proceeds from one loan to make payments on another loan or the ongoing certification of and payment for work that was not completed. Moreover, the report itself contains certain misleading statements by Sánchez-Arán. For example, despite his knowledge of Modules' uncertain financial status and poor performance on several projects, he defended the loans to Modules by explaining that the borrower should have sufficient funds to satisfy the loans in a timely manner. Thus, the district court did not err in ruling that the original indictment was timely.