I have a bank loan situation that feels like it should be a crime but which one? I'm at a loss.
The bank, who previously did business with the borrower,loaned her almost $100k without having any type of written loan agreement. Apparently, the loan was based on two things: first, a previous large check had been deposited with the bank (and only much later did the bank realize it had been a "stop payment" check) and second, upon an invoice shown to the bank officer indicating that the borrower was due almost $100k on a job payment (this also turned out to be bogus).
I don't know if this scenario fits un PC 32.32 since I'm not sure if the bogus check or invoice could be considered a written statement. Likewise, I don't think it fits under PC 32.46 because, so far, I've been told that's no actual loan document. If anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd really appreciate it.

quote:

---

loaned her almost $100k without having any type of written loan agreement

---

What bank does that especially in this economy?

Sounds like an inside job.

What about theft since the loan was given based on her deceptive representations and documentation? No effective consent to the loan by the bank.

Why wouldn't the invoice count as a written statement?

What about forgery for the check?

Sec. 32.21. FORGERY

There is no written documentation that was executed by the bank, electronic or otherwise, for a $100,000 loan?

Sec. 31.06. PRESUMPTION FOR THEFT BY CHECK

(f) If the actor obtained property by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, the actor's intent to deprive the owner of the property under Section 31.03 (Theft) is presumed, except in the case of a postdated check or order, if:

(1) the actor ordered the bank or other drawee to stop payment on the check or order;

(2) the bank or drawee refused payment to the holder on presentation of the check or order within 30 days after issue;

(3) the owner gave the actor notice of the refusal of payment and made a demand to the actor for payment or return of the property; and

(4) the actor failed to:

(A) pay the holder within 10 days after receiving the demand for payment; or

(B) return the property to the owner within 10 days after receiving the demand for return of the property.

Run that sucker past your GJ, but I'm pretty sure they are going to want to ask the bank president why he "loaned" $100K without a written note. My experience is that grand juries are skeptical of banks. And if the GJ has doubts, don't count on 12 citizens being unanimous.

Be skeptical of taking legal or prosecution advice from anonymous posters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 05TC:
Why wouldn't the invoice count as a written statement?

What about forgery for the check?

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000032.00.htm#32.21.00

There is no written documentation that was executed by the bank, electronic or otherwise, for a $100,000 loan?

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000031.00.htm#31.06.00

_(f) If the actor obtained property by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, the actor's intent to deprive the owner of the property under Section 31.03 (Theft) is presumed, except in the case of a postdated check or order, if:

(1) the actor ordered the bank or other drawee to stop payment on the check or order;

(2) the bank or drawee refused payment to the holder on presentation of the check or order within 30 days after issue;

(3) the owner gave the actor notice of the refusal of payment and made a demand to the actor for payment or return of the property; and_

(4) the actor failed to:

(A) pay the holder within 10 days after receiving the demand for payment; or

_(B) return the property to the owner within 10 days after receiving the demand for return of the property._

---