Bank and Financial Fraud Defense

When a loan, payment, certification, or business transaction becomes the subject of a fraud investigation, the defense starts with the exact representation and the evidence of what each person knew when it was made.

Charles Rollins represents individuals and businesses facing bank fraud allegations and other serious white-collar investigations. His experience includes complex bank fraud cases, financial arrangements, electronic discovery, expert consultation, and related civil and regulatory proceedings. His corporate general counsel and commercial litigation work also informs his understanding of the business decisions behind a financial record. Read about Charles’s experience.

What turns a failed transaction into a federal fraud case?

A default, disputed valuation, inaccurate forecast, or broken business relationship does not identify the elements of a crime. Counsel must determine what statute is involved, which statement or conduct is challenged, whose property was allegedly targeted, and how the government connects the individual to the alleged scheme.

The federal bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, contains two clauses: one concerns schemes to defraud a financial institution; the other concerns obtaining property owned by, or in the custody or control of, a financial institution through false or fraudulent means. The prosecution’s theory under those clauses matters.

In Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351 (2014), the Supreme Court held that the second clause does not require proof of an intent to defraud the bank itself. It still requires the statutory connection between the falsehood and obtaining bank property. An explanation that “the statement was made to someone else” cannot replace analysis of the actual transaction and charged clause.

The defense should distinguish facts that existed when a representation was made from later events. A downturn may explain why a loan failed. It does not establish what the borrower originally disclosed. Conversely, a later failure does not itself establish that an earlier statement was knowingly false.

Does repayment, adequate collateral, or a completed project end the inquiry?

Those facts can be important, but their legal significance depends on the offense and issue. Guilt, sentencing loss, restitution, forfeiture, and civil damages are separate questions. A single calculation should not be assumed to answer them all.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Kousisis v. United States concerned fraudulent inducement under the wire fraud statute. It rejected a rule requiring intended net economic loss for that theory. Providing valuable work therefore does not necessarily defeat a charge based on intentional, material deception used to obtain payment. That holding should not be substituted wholesale for the elements of a different statute. For the fuller analysis, see why no financial loss is not a complete defense after Kousisis.

What if the government says a statement was misleading rather than false?

The statutory language matters here too. In Thompson v. United States, 604 U.S. 408 (2025), the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1014 does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false. The decision does not establish a general safe harbor for deceptive financial communications or resolve liability under other statutes.

A defense review should preserve the complete application, question, conversation, attachments, and surrounding communications. An isolated phrase may not convey what was actually asserted. Counsel should also identify who prepared the response, what underlying data was used, and whether the person signing it saw qualifications or corrections that were omitted elsewhere.

What should an executive or business owner do when contacted?

First identify the nature of the contact. A bank’s request for information, an investigator’s interview request, a grand jury subpoena, and a civil complaint create different obligations and risks. Record deadlines and obtain legal advice promptly. Do not ignore compulsory process, alter records, or attempt to coordinate what witnesses will say.

Whether an interview is voluntary, whether testimony is compelled, and whether documents must be produced require separate analysis. A quick explanation from memory can create a second factual dispute before the transaction records have been reviewed.

The Justice Department’s grand jury guidance distinguishes subjects from targets. These are investigative classifications, not findings of guilt or guarantees about future charges. Counsel may seek clarification of the person’s status while evaluating the requested response. The absence of a target letter does not resolve the person’s exposure.

Which records are most useful?

A useful chronology follows the money and the representations together. Depending on the allegations, the defense may need:

• Loan applications, underwriting requests, borrowing-base certificates, covenants, and amendments.
• Financial statements, general ledgers, bank records, collateral schedules, and valuation materials.
• The versions and supporting data behind forecasts, certifications, invoices, and investor or lender presentations.
• Communications among management, finance staff, accountants, brokers, lenders, and counterparties.
• Evidence of review, disclosure, correction, approval, and the authority of each participant.

Preserving a finished PDF may be insufficient if the dispute concerns how numbers changed or who approved them. Native spreadsheets, version histories, messages, and source data can explain both errors and intent. A careful review distinguishes an assumption disclosed to the lender from one concealed in a calculation, and a personal decision from a task performed by someone else.

Large productions also require testing completeness and provenance. Charles’s analysis of concealed investigative sources and defense discovery addresses a different but related question: how the government obtained the evidence and what further inquiry may be warranted. Suspicion about an evidence source is not itself proof of misconduct or a basis for suppression.

How do the company’s interests differ from the owner’s?

Company counsel does not automatically represent an owner, executive, or employee. The engagement must identify the client and potential conflicts before interviews, document reviews, or a proposed resolution proceed on an assumed common interest.

Financial investigations may also intersect with lender enforcement, insurance issues, employment decisions, and commercial litigation. Those proceedings have their own duties and remedies. An explanation, settlement term, or document production should be evaluated for consequences beyond the immediate dispute. A civil settlement does not by itself dispose of criminal exposure.

Charles’s practice includes select commercial and regulatory matters alongside white-collar defense. The appropriate representation depends on the client, the conflicts analysis, the proceedings involved, and the work needed.

Discuss the investigation before committing to a response

Charles is based in Augusta, maintains office space in Atlanta, and is admitted in Georgia and North Carolina. His national practice is subject to the admission requirements of the court involved.

To discuss representation, call (706) 814-2361. Provide the names needed for a conflicts check, the general nature of the matter, and any immediate deadline. Please do not send confidential financial records before representation and an appropriate transmission method are agreed upon.

This page provides general information, not legal advice. The governing law and available defenses depend on the allegations, facts, and jurisdiction. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.