SCOTUS: Thompson v. United States
-
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1095
Facts of the case
Patrick Thompson took out three loans from Washington Federal Bank for Savings between 2011 and 2014, totaling $219,000. In late 2017, Washington Federal failed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) became its receiver, hiring Planet Home Lending to service the loans. Thompson received an invoice showing a loan balance of $269,120.58, which included interest.
In subsequent phone calls with Planet Home and FDIC contractors in February and March 2018, Thompson disputed the higher balance. He acknowledged borrowing money but claimed he had only borrowed $110,000, omitting mention of the two additional loans. When the contractors found out about Thompson’s 2013 and 2014 loans shortly thereafter, they called Thompson back on March 5, 2018, he again expressed doubt over the accuracy of the higher loan balance. Eventually, Thompson and the FDIC agreed to settle his debt for $219,000—the amount Thompson owed without interest in December 2018.
In April 2021, a grand jury charged Thompson with two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1014—a statute that criminalizes making a “false statement . . . for the purpose of influencing in any way the action” of the FDIC or a mortgage lending business. After a six-day trial, a jury convicted Thompson of both counts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Question
Does the prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 1014 on making a “false statement” for the purposes of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies include making statements that are misleading but not false?
-
Pardon my ignorance, but what does 'SCOTUS qualified attorney' mean?
My old boss in Canada had a sign up on his wall that said 'A lie is an intent to deceive'. Whether he was breaking the law or not, he was lying.
They're arguing about the difference between 'AND' an 'OR'. I'd say he violated the spirit of the law.
I'm no lawyer, but when people pull this kind of shit in my job, which they do with Standards compliance, it doesn't tend to work.
I'm no expert, but...
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in SCOTUS: Thompson v. United States:
They're arguing about the difference between 'AND' an 'OR'. I'd say he violated the spirit of the law.
The justices mention a case in which a defendant was asked about bank accounts. He said, "My company has Swiss bank accounts," presumably while HE had Swiss bank accounts. He was accused of perjury, and he was acquitted.
Pardon my ignorance, but what does 'SCOTUS qualified attorney' mean?
It's my understanding that not every street front office lawyer can argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States. This guy, apparently is.
But, to the point, I agree, the spirit doesn't always reflect the text.
Remember, he's accused of lying to a federal agent. That's the argument, not whether he owes the money. Did he commit a crime?
I have no idea.
It's geeky and "parse-ey" as hell. It'll be interesting to see what SCOTUS rules.
-
I say guilty. I know it is not possible to charge on the fact that he for sure knew what he was doing, and intentionally made statements that withhold information.
-
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS: Thompson v. United States:
I know it is not possible to charge on the fact that he for sure knew what he was doing, and intentionally made statements that withhold information.
Right. But the question is not whether he withheld information. The question is whether he lied - made a demonstrably false statement. There's a difference, and in terms of parsing the law, there's a real difference.
I'm not taking a stance in either direction. I just find the arguments fascinating. At the end of the arguments, SCOTUS reduces the question to a more relatable example.
Mom: "How many cookies did you eat?"
Kid: "I ate 5." (There are 12 cookies missing)The kid did not lie. He ate five.
Is he, as a matter of fact, telling an untruth? No.
Is he, as a matter of truth being honest? No as well.But, as a matter of law, words matter. They REALLY matter. So if the law says that someone said an untruth to a federal agency, he should be prosecuted. If the law does NOT say that he was misleading (and there are over 100 laws that throw that qualifier in), then he should walk.
-
When you shake someone's deep sense of self-worth, leaving a scar in their ego, they will persistently try to diminish you through petty arguments & obsessive captious criticism of your actions, just to soothe the wound.
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS: Thompson v. United States:
Apparently there was discussion about whether ‘false in context’ is a third thing (between false and misleading), and whether there’s any difference between ‘false in context’ and ‘misleading’.
Exactly. In the cookie example, which is a simplified take on the question, the kid's answer was "false in context." Thompson's lawyer says that, from a legal perspective, it's not.
‘Some guy?’
That was the nephew and grandson of the Mayors Daley.
I really haven't followed the Daley dynasty ever since I moved to the 'burbs.
