October Term 2016 · Docket 15-5991
Does bank fraud require intent to harm the bank's own property?
The dispute centers on whether a defendant must intend to deprive a bank of its own assets or if intent to harm a customer's property suffices.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Bell argued the statute requires intent to defraud a financial institution.
Mr. Yang argued the required intent is to deceive the bank to deprive it of value.
Chief Justice Roberts noted that insurance rates rise when property is stolen repeatedly.
Justice Ginsburg asked if Shaw could be convicted under a different statutory clause.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 46-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 46-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-34 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 42-46 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 42-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 52-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 52-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 44-10 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 44-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 52-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 52-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 34-38
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Shaw stole a customer's car from a bank lot. The government charged him with defrauding the bank. Shaw argues the bank suffered no direct loss. The government argues the bank's interest was harmed.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 4, 2016.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
Shaw wants the conviction overturned because he did not intend to harm the bank's own property.
The government wants the conviction upheld because Shaw intended to harm the bank's possessory interest.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
What each side says
Shaw argues the statute requires intent to deprive the bank of its own value.
The government argues the statute covers intent to harm any interest the bank holds.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if the intent targets whoever holds a lawful possessory interest.
Justice Breyer asked if theft is impossible when the defendant believes the property is insured.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 46-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 46-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-34 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 42-46 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 42-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 52-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 52-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 44-10 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 44-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 52-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 52-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 34-38
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal bank fraud laws. It determines whether prosecutors can charge theft of customer property as a crime against the bank. The outcome shapes how courts interpret financial institution protections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 46-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 46-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 30-34 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 30-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 42-46 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 42-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 52-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 52-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 44-10 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 44-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-38 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 52-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 52-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 34-38
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-44
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.