Court Opinion

ID: 9493967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:25:09.528166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:08.546928
License: Public Domain

STAPLETON, J.,
Concurring:
As the Court’s opinion recounts, the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) has been extended beyond common law larceny, i.e., the taking of property from the possession of a covered institution without its consent, to situations involving the taking of property from the possession of such an institution when its consent has been obtained through false pretenses. So far as I am aware, however, it has never been applied to a case involving the taking of property from the possession of a consenting covered institution when its consent has not been obtained by false pretenses. Our decision in United States v. Pinto, 646 F.2d 833 (3d Cir.1981), seems to me to preclude our extending the scope of the statute to include such a case, and I concur in the judgment of the Court on that basis.
Here, Howerter practiced no deception on the bank; the checks were paid because the bank was obligated to honor his signature. While the government attempts to make much of the fact that some checks contained memos suggesting the future use of the withdrawn funds for scholarships and a senior class party, the bank’s obligation to honor the checks signed by Howerter was the same whether or not they contained such notations. That those notations were wholly unrelated to the bank’s consent to the withdrawals is evi-deneed by the fact that it honored all of the checks promptly on presentation.