Court Opinion

ID: 9453453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:13:53.582076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:40.044220
License: Public Domain

VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I dissent, respectfully, from that part of the majority opinion reversing the *812April 20, 1966 judgment of conviction on Count II of the indictment. I believe there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly aided and abetted1 in a scheme involving the making or passing of loan applications containing false statements, including the application of Mullanes, as charged in Count II of the indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1010. In addition to appellant’s knowledge of the scheme being used by Goldberg, his partner, Selikoff and others as stated in the majority opinion, he admitted that he and Selikoff were the officers of a two-man corporation, that they exchanged “offices back forth” and that he introduced borrowers such as the Mullanes to Goldberg. Appellant took the Mullanes to the White Plains bank, indorsed the $3500 check which had been drawn to the order of the Mullanes and had that bank issue a $2900 check to the Mullanes and pay $600 to him or his firm showing that he knew of the $600 commission being taken out of the $3500 loan. As stated in United States v. Heithaus, 377 F.2d 484, 485 (3d Cir. 1967),
“ [Appellant’s] * * * conduct in charging a very large, indeed legally excessive, fee for obtaining each loan, his division of the fee with Goldberg, and his retention of most of the fee for himself and his partner, all are some indication that he was party to a scheme of misrepresentation with Goldberg who actually inscribed the false statements in the loan applications.”
As the court said in Moses v. United States, 297 F.2d 621, 626 (8th Cir. 1961), where an order denying a motion for judgment of acquittal in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1010 was upheld,
“it is enough if the party participates, as did the appellant in these cases, in the concerted plan permeating each of the transactions out of which these certificates emanate.”
I would affirm the April 20, 1966 judgment of conviction on Count II of the indictment and reverse the judgment of conviction on Count IV of such indictment.

. In U. S. v. Heithaus, supra, 377 F.2d at 485, Chief Judge Hastie said (footnote 1): “Unquestionably, proof of aiding and abetting will sustain an indictment charging the substantive offense in question.” The evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the Government. See United States v. Carlson, 359 F.2d 592, 597 (3d Cir. 1966), cert. denied sub nom. Bonomo v. United States, 385 U.S. 879, 87 S.Ct. 161, 17 L.Ed.2d 106 (1966). United States v. Russo, 123 F.2d 420, 421-422 (3d Cir. 1941).