United States v. Lekacos United States v. Lekacos

United States v. Lekacos

1945.C02.40096 151 F.2D 170

    • USD 0.99
    • USD 0.99

Descripción editorial

Lekacos, Kotteakos and Regenbogen appeal from a judgment of conviction for a conspiracy to make fraudulent applications for loans under the National Housing Act, contrary to §§ 1702, 1703, 1715 and 1731 of Title 12, U.S.C.A. They raise only two points: (1) A material variance between the indictment and the evidence, in that the indictment was for a single conspiracy, and the evidence proved eight or ten separate and independent conspiracies; (2) an error in the judges charge when he instructed the jury that they could convict only in case they found that there had been a single conspiracy; which, if true, should have led him to dismiss the indictment. The evidence was such that the jury might have found the following facts. One, Simon Brown, who was indicted with the thirty-one others, among whom were the three appellants, was president of a building company in Brooklyn, for which in 1928 he obtained loans from a bank under the National Housing Act, to aid in the construction of twelve houses which his company was building. For reasons which are irrelevant to this prosecution, and which in any event do not very definitely appear, this experience suggested to him a profitable opening for acting as a broker for other borrowers, about one hundred and ten loans in all, whom he charged a commission. He personally submitted to the same bank all the applications which were in the names of the borrowers - in one or two the names were fictitious - and ordinarily he received the cheques which were made payable to the applicants. The applications proposed uses for the money which were among those prescribed by the National Housing Act, but the uses actually intended were quite different, and the applications were therefore fraudulent. Lekacos, hearing from Brown that he was for the moment no longer in the building business, but was securing loans for others, told Brown that he would like a loan "to open up a law office," and, when Brown asked him what use should be declared in the application, Lekacos told him to say that it was for redecorating and painting a house of Lekacoss mother. Brown prepared such an application and Lekacos got the money. Later Lekacos borrowed more money, this time upon a fraudulent application in the name of his brother. Kotteakos and Regenbogen - who were partners in the cigarette and pin-ball machine business - had no connection with either of Lekacoss loans. Lekacos introduced Kotteakos to Brown, and he, and later Regenbogen, obtained personal loans upon fraudulent applications. Thereafter the two acted as intermediaries between Brown and other applicants, who filed applications, to the frauds in which both were privy.

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
1945
7 de agosto
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
10
Páginas
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENDEDOR
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
55.3
KB

Más libros de Second Circuit Circuit Court Of Appeals

Farid-Es-Sultaneh v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Farid-Es-Sultaneh v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1947
Klein v. American Casting & Mfg. Corp. Klein v. American Casting & Mfg. Corp.
1937
In re Combs In re Combs
1937
In re Hale Desk Co. In re Hale Desk Co.
1937
Bisbee Linseed Co. v. Paragon Paint & Varnish Corp. Bisbee Linseed Co. v. Paragon Paint & Varnish Corp.
1937
In re G. W. Giannini Inc. In re G. W. Giannini Inc.
1937