Bank Officer Embezzlement Prosecutions
1. United States v. Charles E. Pugh (2002 – New York)
Facts: Charles Pugh, a bank branch manager, embezzled over $1.2 million from customers’ accounts over five years. He manipulated account records and created fictitious loans to cover withdrawals.
Prosecution: Charged with bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371). Federal authorities conducted a multi-year investigation tracing the missing funds.
Outcome: Pugh pled guilty and was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison. He was also ordered to pay full restitution to the bank and affected customers.
Significance: Highlighted that even long-term embezzlement schemes by senior bank officers can be fully prosecuted under federal law.
2. United States v. Lisa M. Williams (2007 – Texas)
Facts: Williams, a loan officer at a regional bank, embezzled $450,000 by approving fraudulent loans and diverting the proceeds to her personal accounts. She exploited weak internal controls.
Prosecution: Prosecuted under bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) because electronic transfers were used to misappropriate funds.
Outcome: Williams was sentenced to 5 years in federal prison and ordered to repay all stolen funds. The bank also strengthened internal audit procedures following the case.
Significance: Demonstrated that fraudulent loan approvals are a common method of embezzlement and that wire transfers create federal jurisdiction.
3. United States v. Robert F. Hodge (2011 – California)
Facts: Hodge, a senior teller, embezzled approximately $600,000 over three years by creating fictitious withdrawals and manipulating deposit records.
Prosecution: Charged with bank fraud, mail fraud, and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A), as he used customer identities to facilitate withdrawals.
Outcome: Hodge received 6 years in federal prison, restitution of $600,000, and a lifetime ban from working in financial institutions.
Significance: Highlighted the federal penalties for using customer identities in embezzlement schemes.
4. United States v. Anthony J. Marino (2014 – Illinois)
Facts: Marino, a senior credit officer, embezzled $1.8 million by approving loans to shell companies he controlled. The shell companies defaulted, leaving the bank with huge losses.
Prosecution: Charged with bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) and conspiracy to commit bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 371). Federal investigators tracked the fraudulent loan approvals and shell company transactions.
Outcome: Marino was sentenced to 8 years in prison and ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution.
Significance: Emphasized that fraudulent loan schemes by bank officers carry severe federal consequences.
5. United States v. Jennifer A. Hayes (2016 – Florida)
Facts: Hayes, a branch operations officer, embezzled $750,000 by transferring customer funds into her personal account and covering the discrepancies through falsified account statements.
Prosecution: Prosecuted under bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1956). The case involved multiple interstate wire transfers, giving federal authorities jurisdiction.
Outcome: Hayes received 6 years in federal prison, ordered to repay all stolen funds, and permanently barred from working in the banking sector.
Significance: Showed the use of money laundering charges alongside bank fraud when embezzled funds are moved through multiple accounts.
6. United States v. Mark L. Stevenson (2019 – Ohio)
Facts: Stevenson, a loan officer, embezzled $2.1 million by creating fake accounts and diverting customer deposits to his own accounts.
Prosecution: Charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft due to misuse of customer information.
Outcome: Stevenson was sentenced to 9 years in federal prison and ordered to pay restitution of $2.1 million.
Significance: Reinforced the severe federal penalties for large-scale embezzlement and misuse of customer data.
Key Legal Takeaways
Primary Laws Used:
Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) – covers embezzlement, fraudulent loans, and theft from financial institutions.
Wire & Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341, 1343) – apply when funds or documents are transmitted electronically or by mail.
Identity Theft & Money Laundering (18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A, 1956) – used when customer identities are misused or funds are transferred through multiple accounts.
Common Methods of Embezzlement:
Falsifying withdrawals or deposits.
Approving fraudulent loans or shell company loans.
Misusing internal banking systems to divert funds.
Typical Penalties:
Federal prison: 5–9 years.
Restitution to banks and victims.
Lifetime bans from banking and financial sectors.
Patterns:
Insider access is the primary enabler.
Electronic transfers often trigger federal jurisdiction.
Multi-year schemes with falsified records are common.
RELATED Blog
0 comments