Unpublished Disposition, 936 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Allen R. Heckard appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for two counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. He contends that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Sufficient evidence to support a conviction exists if "a reasonable jury, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, could have found the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of each essential element of the crime charged." United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.2d 774, 777 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 179 (1989) (citation omitted); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

"In order to obtain a conviction for bank fraud ..., the government must prove ... that the defendant knowingly (1) engaged in a scheme to defraud a ... financial institution by means of material, false statements or representations." United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 850 (9th Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 561 (1989). Specific intent to defraud is an essential element of bank fraud under section 1344. United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1442 (9th Cir. 1990). "Intent to defraud may be established by circumstantial evidence." Id. at 1443.

Heckard argues that the evidence did not establish a specific intent to defraud, and did not establish the existence of a scheme to defraud. Heckard claims that his behavior at the banks and his dealings with the bank tellers were indicative of his lack of intent to defraud.¹  Further, Heckard argues that his actions could not constitute a "scheme" because he had a "bona fide" account with the Naval Federal Credit Union ("NFCU") and always provided the victim banks with correct information regarding his name and address.

Heckard opened three bank accounts at three banks within a two week period between November 16, 1988 and November 28, 1988. During this period, he deposited four checks, ranging in amounts from $500 to $10,000, drawn from his account with NFCU. Within hours or days of each deposit, Heckard withdrew or attempted to withdraw substantial portions of each deposit. His withdrawal requests ranged from $100 to $8,000. Altogether, Heckard "deposited" $21,350 during this period. All four checks drawn on the NFCU account eventually were returned for non-sufficient funds ("NSF"), but in the interim, Heckard was able to withdraw $11,500.

Heckard's repeated pattern of opening a bank account with a check and then immediately withdrawing substantial portions of the opening deposit supports the jury's inference that he intended to defraud the banks. See United States v. Bonallo, 858 F.2d 1427, 1434 (9th Cir. 1988) (jury's conclusion may be based solely on circumstantial evidence). A bank employee testified that when Heckard was confronted with a NSF check, he allegedly grabbed the check and ran out of the bank. A rational trier of fact could easily conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Heckard knowingly opened the bank accounts with overdrawn checks with the intent to cash-out the accounts before the checks bounced. See Mason, 902 F.2d at 1443.

AFFIRMED.