Kardashian hypothetical is raised in SCOTUS arguments on intent needed for bank fraud violation
Kim Kardashian. BAKOUNINE / Shutterstock.com
Justice Stephen G. Breyer offered a Kim Kardashian hypothetical on Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court considered the intent requirement under the federal bank fraud law.
At issue in the case is whether the bank fraud law requires only intent to deceive the bank, or whether it also requires an intent to inflict financial harm on the bank, report the National Law Journal (sub. req.), the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Big Law Business and SCOTUSblog.
The criminal defendant, Lawrence Shaw, had argued his electronic transfer of funds from the account of his roommate’s father to his own was intended to defraud the roommate’s father, not the bank.
Breyer suggested he didn’t buy the argument with a hypothetical drawing on the recent jewelry robbery of Kim Kardashian in a Paris apartment. Suppose that “Kim Kardashian’s thief, if there is one, believes that all that jewelry is insured,” Breyer said. Would it still be a theft?
Or what if a man posing as a jewelry cleaner comes to Kardashian’s door, cons her into giving him the jewelry, but believes it is on loan rather than owned by Kardashian, Breyer asked. Is that still fraud?
According to SCOTUSblog, “Breyer clearly believed that the answer in both cases was yes.” Other justices were also skeptical of the intent argument advanced by Shaw’s lawyer, according to Bloomberg and SCOTUSblog.
The justices then turned their attention to an argument about the jury instructions, an issue that has fewer implications in bank fraud prosecutions, according to Bloomberg. More justices appeared to be sympathetic to Shaw on that issue, though a ruling for him on the instructions “is hardly a certainty,” SCOTUSblog says.
The case is Shaw v. United States.
Related article:
ABAJournal.com: “Does bank fraud law require proof of intent to cheat the bank? SCOTUS to decide”
