S. Ct. U.S. 1983
-Later that day, at another branch, he deposited into his account a third party's $10,000 check on which the endorsement had been altered to show petitioner's account number.
-Subsequently petitioner closed his account and was paid the total balance in cash.
HOLDING: The Bank Robbery Act was not limited to common-law larceny, but also proscribed the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Defendant was convicted in the U S D Ct Fl jury trial of violating the Bank Robbery Act. The Ct of App reversed, but that Court sitting en banc, ultimately affirmed the conviction. Certiorari was granted. The S Ct Affirmed.
ANALYSIS: The statutory language does not suggest that it covers only common-law larceny. The language "takes and carries away" is traditional common-law language, but represents only one element of common-law larceny. It is entirely consistent with false pretenses, although not a necessary element of that crime. other language of § 2113(b) shows an intention to go beyond common-law larceny. Section 2113(b) does not apply to a case of false pretenses in which there is not a taking and carrying away, but it proscribes petitioner's conduct here. The legislative history of § 2113(b) also suggests that Congress intended the statute to reach petitioner's conduct. The congressional purpose was to protect banks from those who wished to steal banks' assets--even if they used no force in doing so.