WPC E ndބYlEEr+lcS \7S'  %%YQ_r[Nd`W,scފA`ΚTyOxgu,dzSk؜ X'r \V\)g.<"I (KNSQ?J&U*C'֟'n{J+@G0زwğƬAM/JvIJ{L굥gV+R)W^]0D/Xf%N.;w$6깡m6cK4x<)?I 0z| ޯ?vmgu{}Xp L >1 L3G&#[* FIH u7{2'GP#{AZN4 }"el&|'hP#U > % 0FUNUFa^ w4 mN 0D 09nTEq 01sNUFUBZ.... Z''' 0.  B4!Q!Q!Q!Q!Q!Q!Q!N$$^''bd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'l')) ----T/////N5N5 0U5 0g5 0P6 067 08 08 09 0: 0; 0C[< 0< 0u= 0I> 0? 0? 0@ 0{A 0@B 0@C 0@C 0D 0D 0E 0~F 0FG 0 H 0H 0<I 0I 0>J 0vJ 0`8K 0`K 0`K 0`XL 0`L 08M 0PM 02"N 0TN 0:PO 0_O 0 O 0jP 0]R B*S D/ T D+:T 0eT D/U 0V 06V 0W 0:$X 0^^XMX 0< ` 0NE`^`U6` 'a 9aU>Sa]aU*eU0fbHfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfPfffffffffffff.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.hlnnnnnnntkqkqkqkqbvvvvv AQQ llll L7·················5HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0<\( 9Z+&Courier RegularX(i$  USUS.,(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular47-s 2{)-xy File3|x!U(#$  0  (:2̸$ i!  USUS.,    =ݏXXdd=    0  <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@0.Normal.Courier New Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi P ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    1    _JohnMoran'sinterestwas20%oftheshareretainedbyPuente  andBoersner,or12%ofthetotalprofitinterest.SDU_21  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    7    _18U.S.C.3731providesforappellatejurisdictionoveran  appealbroughtbythegovernmentinacriminalcasefromanorder x ofadistrictcourtdismissinganindictmentorinformationor @ grantinganewtrialafterverdictorjudgment.Thoughthestatute X intermsdoesnotrefertoappealsfromordersenteringajudgment   ofacquittal,theSupremeCourthasinterpretedsection3731as  allowinggovernmentappealsincriminalcases"wheneverthe `  Constitutionwouldpermit."UnitedStatesv.Wilson,420U.S.332, ( x 337,95S.Ct.1013,1019(1975).Here,doublejeopardyprinciples  @ donotbarappealbythegovernmentbecausethedistrictcourt    grantedtheRule29motionsafterthejuryrenderedaguilty    verdictandthedistrictcourtwillbeabletoimplementour H   conclusionthatthejudgmentofacquittalwasimpropersimplyby `  enteringajudgmentontheverdictonremandratherthanby (  requiringthe_Morans_Ԁtosubmittotrialforasecondtime.See   UnitedStatesv.Scott,437U.S.82,91n.7,98_S.Ct_.2187,2194 h  n.7(1978). P ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    4    _Inbankingjargon,whenrequiredpaymentsarenotmadeona  loanitissaidtobe"performing"unsatisfactorily.6&)4Hyperlink             $ ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    6    _Thejudgmentofacquittaloncountfourisnotbeforeuson  appeal. d  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    17    _Wenotethatthedistrictcourtinitsopinionindicatedthat  NoraMoranatleastbyDecember11,1986,wasawareofJohn_Moran's_ x brokeragefeeand20%interestand,infailingtodisclosethis @ information,"violatedthatpartofRegulationOandthe_Bank's_ X CodeofEthicsrequiringsuch_disclosure."_ԀOpinionat23.  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    3    __Thoughitisnotessentialtoouranalysisthatwedoso,we  notethatthedistrictcourtcitedthediscrepantclosingdateof x December26fortheCommonwealthAvenueprojectloan,bywayof @ referencetodocumentationsubmittedbyJohnMorantothebankin X January1988.Thepartiesagreeandalltheotherevidenceon   recordindicates,however,thattheloanclosedonDecember24,  1986.L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT- -  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    15    _Forexample,therewasevidencetosuggestthatitwasthe  bank'spracticetoprovideeverydirectorwithacopyoftheCode x ofProfessionalEthics.Furthermore,NoraMoranattendedaJuly9, @ 1986meetingoftheBoardofDirectorsatwhichFinnegandisclosed X herinsiderstakeintheproposedNightingaleloanandabstained   fromvoting.  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    14    _Wenotethatthegovernment'stheoryofNoraMoran's  liabilityforbankfraudwasnotlimitedexclusivelytoheractive x participationintheJanuaryvote.Forinstance,theindictment @ chargedthatinspiteofherfiduciarypositionandindependently X ofanyBoardvotesormeetingsshechosenottodiscloseher   husband'sbrokerageorprofitarrangementandinfactexecutedthe  MDGTrustdocumentinordertofacilitatethefraudulentscheme. `  Furthermore,thegovernmentpursueditsnondisclosuretheoryof ( x liabilityattrialandduringitsclosingargument.  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    18    _SeeOpinionat5960("thegovernmentfailedtopresent  evidencesufficientforareasonablejurytofindthatNoraMoran x knowinglyparticipatedinactionsoftheBankthathadtheeffect @ ofcausingorfacilitatingthemakingoftheloans"). J ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    11    _Itisalsosignificantthat,althoughhetestified,John  Morandidnotintroduceattrialanyrecordsdocumentinghis x allegeddisclosure.Notwithstandingthepassageoftime,the @ relocationofoffices,ortheinterventionofallegedlycalamitous X naturalevents,onemightreasonablyexpectthatJohnMoranwould   havebeencarefultoretaincopiesofanydocumentsdisclosingto  bankofficialshisoutsidedealingswithPuenteand_Boersner_ `  consideringtheintensescrutinytowhichtheloansweresubjected ( x  withinapproximatelyoneyearfromtheirapproval.Certainlythe  factthatNoraMoranwasaskedtoresignherdirectorpositionin x thespringof1988pursuanttotheindependentfindingsofoutside @ counselstronglywouldhaveforewarnedJohnMoranoftheutilityof X preservingwithpainstakingcareanyexculpatorydocumentsinhis   possession.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  <:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis<:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7(X7&  d d)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7(X7)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB       C ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    8    _Rule29(a)and(b)readinfull:  8  (a)MOTIONBEFORESUBMISSIONTOJURY.Motionsfor @ directedverdictareabolishedandmotionsforjudgment X  ofacquittalshallbeusedintheirplace.Thecourton  motionofadefendantorofitsownmotionshallorder x theentryofjudgmentofacquittalofoneormore @ offenseschargedintheindictmentorinformationafter X theevidenceoneithersideisclosediftheevidenceis   insufficienttosustainaconvictionofsuchoffenseor  offenses.Ifadefendant'smotionforjudgmentof `  acquittalatthecloseoftheevidenceofferedbythe ( x governmentisnotgranted,thedefendantmayoffer  @ evidencewithouthavingreservedtheright.     8  (b)RESERVATIONOFDECISIONONMOTION.Thecourtmay H   reservedecisiononamotionforjudgmentofacquittal, `  proceedwiththetrial(wherethemotionismadebefore (  thecloseofalltheevidence),submitthecasetothe   juryanddecidethemotioneitherbeforethejuryreturns h  averdictorafteritreturnsaverdictofguiltyoris 0  dischargedwithouthavingreturnedaverdict.Ifthe H  courtreservesdecision,itmustdecidethemotiononthe  basisoftheevidenceatthetimetherulingwas  reserved.2 0CommentB  (O$L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(Courier NewSDU_36SearchTerm\  `&Times New Roman S ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    9    _Thebankfraudstatute,18U.S.C.1344,provides:  8  Whoeverknowinglyexecutes,orattemptstoexecute,a @ schemeorartifice--X   8  8`    (1)todefraudafinancialinstitution;  or` ` x` x  ( x  8  8`    (2)toobtainanyofthemoney,funds,  credits,assets,securities,orotherproperty x ownedby,orunderthecustodyorcontrolof, @ afinancialinstitution,bymeansoffalseor X fraudulentpretenses,representations,or   promises;` x` x 8  shallbefinednotmorethan$1,000,000orimprisonednot ( x morethan30years,orboth.%2A`Arial<\( 9Z+Courier - -    ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    12    _WereiteratethatthedistrictcourtfailedtoconsiderJohn  _Moran's_Ԁtestimonyorthegovernment'srebuttalcaseinitsanalysis x whengrantingthemotionsforacquittal.  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    13    _Thatistosay,theinformationwasmaterialbecausehadit  beenknownthatJohnMoran'slegalrepresentationwaspresumptively x partialandhencesuspect,thebankmighthavetakenstepsto @ protectitselffromtheveryreallikelihoodoflegalactionor X regulatoryliability,forinstancebydelayingtheapprovalofthe   loansuntilafurtherindependentinvestigationoftheloanscould  beconducted.See S_Neder_v.UnitedStates,527U.S.1,16,119 `  _S.Ct_.1827,1837(1999)(anomissionismaterialifitis"capable ( x ofinfluencingthedecisionofthe_decisionmaking_Ԁbody")(citations  @ andinternalpunctuationomitted).  u  ݀  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    20    _Wenotethatanalternativeaccomplicetheoryofliability  waschargedintheindictment,advancedbythegovernmentattrial, x andpresentedtothejuryinthecourt'sfinalinstructions.  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    16    _Weemphasizefurtherthatthejurors,drawinguponcommon  senseandtheirownlifeexperiences,reasonablymighthave x inferredthatspousessuchasthe_Morans_Ԁinrelationshipswhose @ probityandopennesshavenotbeencalledintoquestion(for X instancebeforetheclosingsontheloans)arewonttosharenon   confidentialdetailsoftheirprofessionallives. j ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    19    _TheCourtofAppealsfortheFifthCircuitinUnitedStates  v.Henderson,19F.3d917,923&n.7(5thCir.1994),confronteda x similarclaimthatmerebreachoffiduciarydutycannotconstitute @ a"schemeorartifice"todefraudunder S18U.S.C.1344but,aswe X dohere,foundsufficientevidenceofmorethansuchabreach,thus   obviatingtheneedtoreachtheissue.Nevertheless,while"not  everybreachofeveryfiduciarydutyworksacriminalfraud," `  UnitedStatesv.George,5477F.2d5085,512(7thCir.519735),wefind ( x nofederaljurisprudenceestablishingasamatteroflawthata  @ failuretodiscloseaconflictofinterestorabreachoffiduciary    dutycannotconstituteoraidandabetaschemetodefraud,    assumingtherequisitematerialityandspecificintenttodeceive H   forpersonalgainareestablished. X ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    22    _Thedistrictcourtdisposedofthebankfraudconspiracy  convictionsonthegroundthattheevidencecouldnotsupporta x convictionagainsteitherMoranontheunderlyingbankfraud @ substantiveoffenses.SeeOpinionat60("thefailuretoestablish X beyondareasonabledoubtthateitherdefendantcommittedthe   substantiveoffensewasalsoafailuretoestablishbeyonda  reasonabledoubttheagreementbetweenthemtocommittheoffense") `  (emphasisinoriginal).Itdidnotconsider,however,thata ( x defendantcan beguiltyoftheinchoateoffenseofconspiracyeven  @ ifheandhiscoconspiratorarenotguiltyoftheunderlying    substantiveoffensesolongasheknowinglyenteredanagreementto    %  %w%  %committhesubstantiveoffenseandparticipatedintheplotto H    effectuatetheoffense;successisnotarequiredelement. See, `   e.g.,Salinasv.UnitedStates,522U.S.52,65,118_S.Ct_.469,477    (1997)("Itiselementarythataconspiracymayexistandbe  punishedwhetherornotthesubstantivecrime%  %ensues,forthe h conspiracyisadistinctevil,dangeroustothepublic,andso 0 punishableitself.");UnitedStatesv._Belardo_Ԅ_Quinones_,71F.3d H 941,944(1stCir.1995)(conspiracymayexisteveniftheobject 8 oftheconspiracycannotbeachieved).SDU_9  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    10    _Weemphasizethatsection1344byitsliteralterms  proscribestheknowingexecutionorattemptedexecutionofascheme x todefraudafinancialinstitution.Accordingly,bankfraudcanbe @ provenevenifthedefendantdoesnotoweapreexistingdisclosure X dutytothebank.Thus,evidenceofanaffirmative   misrepresentation,halftruth,oromissionofmaterialinformation  madeknowinglytoabanktobeguileaneconomicboonfromitin `  itselfwillsufficetosupportaconviction.Asexplainedin ( x   b  SUnitedStatesv._Colton_,231F.3d890,898903(4thCir.2000),  @ federalbankfraud,consistentwithitsstatutorypurpose,extends    toactiveconcealmentevenintheabsenceofafiduciary,    statutory,orotherindependentlegaldutyofdisclosurewherethe H   defendantactswiththerequisiteintenttomisleadordeceive. `  Whiletheexistenceofthe_defendant's_Ԁindependentdutytothe (   institutionisafactortobeconsideredinevaluatingthe  prosecution'scase,forinstancewithrespecttothedefendant's x stateofmind(abankdirectororabankattorneywouldbeharder @ pressedtoclaimgoodfaiththananunseasonedlayperson), X ultimatelyproofofaknowing"schemeorartificetodefraud"   whetherexecutedbyaffirmativeactsoromissionsisallthat  thestatuterequiresforconviction.StarPageciteas((Cite as: 56 F.3d 319, *324) - ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    2    _NoraMoranwasatrusteeofthebankfromMarch1985until  July1986,whenitchangeditsorganizationalstructuretoprovide, x interalia,thatitwouldhaveaBoardofDirectorsratherthana @ BoardofTrustees.Weusethetermstrusteeanddirector X interchangeably.  ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    21    _Ofcourse,theagreementneednotbemadeexpresslynor  provedbydirectevidence.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Woodward, x 149F.3d46,67,68(1stCir.1998). + ̸$  USUS.,  =X Xdd=    5    _The_Morans_Ԁdonotclaimthatthetenyearstatuteof  limitationsforbankfraudunder18U.S.C.1344hadrunbythe x timeoftheindictment.See18U.S.C.3293.Inthisregardwe @ pointoutthattheindictmentchargesonlyactstheprosecutionof X whichhadnotbeenbarredbythepreviouslyapplicablefiveyear   statuteoflimitationsasofAugust1989.See_Pub.L._ԀNo.10173  961(l)(3)). i!  USUS.,  _ XXXX"9XX@ UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#<"9L#x<#X Xxk#Ԉ    XX#bz #hbz@ FortheFirstCircuit #bzhw##XڣXbz5#Ԉ  A') ` dE<` A  No.002097   @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  c @%Appellant,    @tt)v. 3  @ JOHNMORANandNORAMORAN,   @Defendants,Appellees. S  A') ` dE<` A 3   @@*APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT   FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS J   @[Hon.ReginaldC.Lindsay,U.S.DistrictJudge] * A') ` dE<i` A j @'Before A   @Boudin,ChiefJudge, ! @ Selya,CircuitJudge, a @0 0 Greenberg,*SeniorCircuitJudge. A! A') ` dE<` A #   ChristopherL._Varner_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,with X % whomMichaelSullivan,UnitedStatesAttorney,wasonbrieffor  !p& appellant. !8'   FrancisJ._DiMento_withwhom_DiMento_Ԁ&Sullivanwasonbrief, "( forappellee,JohnM.Moran. x#)   KennethJ.FishmanwithwhomPeterCharles_Horstman_,JulieA. @$* _Hamon_andFishman,_Anker_Ԁ&_Horstman_wereonbriefforappellee, %X + NoraMoran. % !, @_________________________ ((x#/   September23,2002 )%1 ] @_________________________ *%2 _____________ ,`'4   *HonorableMortonI.Greenberg,oftheThirdCircuit,sitting ,((5 bydesignation.  -(6 _  8ڣXXdd83*,X` XX* `  Greenburg,SeniorCircuitJudge .Thiscasecomeson  beforethiscourtonappealfromaJuly13,2000memorandumand  orderofthedistrictcourtenteringajudgmentofacquittalfor  p defendantsappelleesJohnMoranandNoraMoranaftertheirjury   convictionsforbankfraudandconspiracytocommitbankfraud @  under18U.S.C.1344and371.Grantingappellees'Fed.R.Crim.    P.29motionsoneyearafterthejuryreturnedtheverdicts,the `  courtconcludedthattheevidencethegovernmentsubmittedinits @  caseinchiefwasinsufficienttosustaintheconvictions.The   governmentchallengesthatdeterminationonappeal,arguingthat ` thedistrictcourterredinfailingtoconsiderthefulltrial  recordbeforegrantingthemotions.Thegovernmentcontendsthat 0 theevidence,viewedinitstotalityandwithallreasonable  inferencesdrawninthegovernment'sfavorastheverdictwinner, P supportedafindingbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheMoranseach 0 knowinglyengagedandconspiredtoengageinaschemetodefrauda p federallyinsuredbankinginstitutionbyactivelyconcealing P  materialinformationconcerningtheiroutsideinterestsinBoston " realestatedevelopmentprojectssecuredbytwoloansmadebythe  !p$ institution.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,weagreewiththe "& governmentandwillreversethejudgmentofthedistrictcourt, @$( reinstatetheguiltyverdicts,andremandthecasetothedistrict % !* courtforfurtherproceedings. `'",   @#I.BACKGROUND *%0  `  Abriefsummaryofthesalientfactsfollows,thoughwe ,`'2 reservemakingamoredetailedexpositionuntilwesetforthour  legalanalysis.Thisappealgrowsoutofasupersedingindictment @ chargingtheMoranswithbankfraudandconspiracyinconnection   withtwoloanstheFirstAmericanBankforSavings(First `  American),afederallyinsuredinstitution,madeinDecember1986  @ torealestatedevelopersEdgarPuenteandDavidBoersner.Puente    andBoersnerneededfinancingfortworenovationprojectsseeking `  totransformbrownstoneandapartmentbuildingsonCommonwealth   AvenueandinWestRutlandSquareinBostonintocondominiums. 0   ` JohnMoran,whoformanyyearsonnumerousoccasionshad  representedFirstAmericanasaconveyancingattorney,metwith P PuenteandBoersnerinOctober1986todiscussservingastheir 0 mortgagebroker.PuenteandBoersnerhiredJohnMoraninthat p capacityundertheselfstyled"MoranHoldings,"agreeingtopay P himafeeequalto1.5%ofanyloanshesuccessfullyprocuredfor  theirprojects.JohnMoransubsequentlyarrangedandattendeda  p meetingwithPuente,Boersner,andaloanofficeratFirst   American,EdmundNoke,whichculminatedintheparties'agreeing @" thatFirstAmericanwouldextendtwoloanstotaling$17millionto  $ PuenteandBoersnerinexchangefora40%profitinterestinthe `"& developmentprojects.ThepartiesfurtheragreedthatJohnMoran #@( wouldactastheclosingattorneyforthebankontheloans.Ina % * separateagreement,notinvolvingNoke,PuenteandBoersneragreed '`",  togiveJohnMorana20%profitinterestintheprojectstobeheld (#. bytheMoranDevelopmentGroup(MDG)Trust,establishedbyNora  Moran,itssoletrustee,onDecember15,1986. #  1      ׀ @   ` NoraMoran,whoatalltimesrelevanttothisappealwas   arealestatebrokerandthewifeofJohnMoran,wasontheBoard `  ofDirectorsofFirstAmerican,havingassumedtheofficeonAugust  @ 21,1986.  #  2      ׀FirstAmericanhadadoptedaCodeofProfessional    Ethicsin1979requiring,interalia,thatanofficerordirector `  discloseanydirectorindirectfinancialinterestinabankloan   anddisqualifyhimorherselffromparticipatingintheapproval 0  processforanysuchloan.Thisrequirementwasconsistentwith  Regulation"O"oftheFederalReserveBoard,12C.F.R.215, P which,pursuantto12U.S.C.375a(10),requiresinterested 0 directorstodisclosefullyanypersonalfinancialstakeorthat p oftheirrelatedentitiesinagivenloanandprohibitsthemfrom P participatingdirectlyorindirectlyinanyvotetoextendsuch  credit.Theregulationalsorequiresbankstokeeprecordsof  p insiderloanstodirectors,officers,andtheirrelatedinterests   andtoreportannuallyallinsiderloanstofederalregulators. @" See12C.F.R.215.7and215.9.  $  ` InNovember1986,theMorans,Noke,Puente,Boersner,and `"& arepresentativeofContractorsFundingCorporation,acompany #@( specializinginconstructioninspectionservices,visitedthe  CommonwealthAvenueandWestRutlandSquareprojectsites.John @ Moransubsequentlysubmittedformal,writtenproposalsonbehalfof   PuenteandBoersnerseekingnonrecourseloansfortheprojects `  (which,asopposedtorecourseloans,insulateborrowersfrom  @ personalliabilityfortheamountoftheloans).Theproposals    carriedthenameMoranHoldingsandweresignedbyJohnMoran,but `  didnotmentionhisbrokerageorprofitarrangementwithPuenteand   Boersner. 0   ` Nokesentmemorandasummarizingtheloanproposalsto  FirstAmerican'sExecutiveCommitteeinDecember1986,asallloans P foramountsgreaterthan$500,000requireditsapproval.These 0 memorandadidnotmentionJohnMoran'sbrokerageorprofit p arrangementwithPuenteandBoersner.TheExecutiveCommittee P approvedtheloansonarecoursebasisonDecember17,andthey  closedonDecember23and24.0 #  3      ׀JohnMoranrepresentedthebankat  p theclosings,charging$35,500forhisservicesalthoughheinfact   collectedonly$30,500onthefee.Healsoreceived$255,000in @" mortgagebrokeragefeesfromtheproceedsoftheloans.  $ Furthermore,JohnMorankeptanadditional$52,000inbankfundsin `"& hischeckingaccount,whichshouldhavebeendisbursedatthe #@( closings. % *  ` OnJanuary15,1987,theBoardofDirectors,withNora  Moraninattendance,mettoconsideranagendawhichincludeda @ reportoftheExecutiveCommittee'sactivitiesforDecember1986.   MinutesfromaDecember17meetingoftheExecutiveCommitteeshow `  thattwovotesweretaken,oneapproving140loanstotaling  @ $31,098,750andanotherapproving13additionalloanstotaling    $58,961,000withthePuente/Boersnerloansincludedinthelatter `  group.TheExecutiveCommittee'sreporttotheBoard,however,   includeddetailsconcerningonlythevoteonthe140loans. 0  Nevertheless,thegovernmentarguedattrialandarguesonthis  appealthattheBoardvotedtoapprovethePuente/Boersnerloansat P theJanuary15meetingandthatNoraMoran,ratherthan 0 disqualifyingherselfbecauseofherfinancialinterest,votedin p favoroftheloans.Notwithstandingtheirdisputeoverwhat P happenedattheBoardmeetingonJanuary15,1987,theparties  agreethatNoraMoranneverdisclosedtoanyemployee,officer,or  p agentofFirstAmericanherhusband'sstatusasthemortgagebroker   forPuenteandBoersnerorhisprofitinterestintheirdevelopment @" projects.  $  ` Followingtheclosings,JohnMorandidnotfile `"& settlementstatementswiththebank,formscustomarilysignedby #@( allthepartiesandsubmittedwithin30daysaccountingfortheuse % * oftheloanproceeds.Moreover,hedidnotsubmitanyrecords '`", documentinghismortgagebrokeragearrangement,his20%interestin (#. theproject,orhisretentionoftheadditional$52,000inbank 0*%0 funds.Furthermore,hedidnotdisclosethatheusedaportionof +'2 thatmoneyinApril1987topayoffaloanthatPuenteandBoersner  hadsecuredfromOlympicInternationalBank&TrustCompany(where @ JohnMoranservedasadirector)asadownpaymenttowardsthe   purchaseoftheWestRutlandSquareproperty. `   ` In1988,FirstAmericanvicepresidentandgeneral  @ counselMichaelHansonreviewedthefilesonthePuente/Boersner    projectsbecausetheloanswerenotperforming  #  4      ׀satisfactorilyand `  discoveredthatthesettlementstatementsweremissing.Afterhe   eventuallyobtainedcopiesofthestatements,Hansonrealizedthat 0  signatureswereabsentfromthemandthatbalanceswereunaccounted  for.HelearnedalsothatJohnMoranhadreceivedmortgage P brokeragefeesfromtheloanproceeds.Finally,Hansondiscovered 0 thatJohnMoranhadobtaineda20%profitstakeinthe p Puente/Boersnerprojectswhichheexpectedtosatisfybysecuring P apenthouseapartmentinoneofthebuildings.These  understandablydisturbingrevelationscausedHansontocontactthe  p bank'soutsideattorneys,thefirmofWarner&Stackpole,regarding   thePuente/Boersnerloans. @"  ` OnMay3,1988,Warner&StackpoleattorneysStanley  $ RagalevskyandSamuelAdamsmetwithJohnMoranandNoraMoranfor `"& approximatelytwohours.Accordingtothememorandumregardingthe #@( meetingthatRagalevskyandAdamssubmittedtoFirstAmericanafter % * theMoransapprovedit,NoraMoranadmittedthatshehadbeenaware '`", ofherhusband'sbrokerageandprofitarrangementbythetimethe (#. loanswereapproved.Shealsoadmittedthatshenevervolunteered  thisinformationtoanyoneatthebank,believingthatherhusband @ hadmadetheappropriatedisclosures.JohnMoranclaimedthathe   hadmadefulldisclosureofhisinterestintheventurestoNoke `  andhadgivenuphisinterestintheproperties.Asaconsequence  @ ofthedisclosuresinthememorandumandthefactsrevealedbythe    relatedinvestigation,NoraMoranwasaskedtoresignherdirector `  positionfromtheFirstAmericanBancorp,Inc.,thebank'sholding   companytowhichshehadmovedfromthebankproper.TheBoardof 0  DirectorsofBancorpacceptedherresignationonJune30,1988.By  October1990,FirstAmericanfailedandwasclosedbytheFDIC. P  ` OnJuly9,1997,agrandjuryreturnedasuperseding 0 indictmentagainstJohnandNoraMoranfor%  %?bankfraudunder  @  ݀ S18 p U.S.C.1344,aidingandabettingbankfraudunder18U.S.C.2, P andconspiracytocommitbankfraudunder18U.S.C.371. #  5      ׀  Specifically,countstwoandthreeoftheindictmentchargedthat  p JohnMoranasaclosingattorneyforFirstAmericanandNoraMoran   asadirectorofFirstAmericancommittedfraudwhen,thoughduty @" boundtodoso,theyfailedtodisclosetheirmaterialprofit  $ interestintheprojectswhenthe$17millionmortgageloanswere `"& issued.Withrespecttotheconspiracy,countoneofthe #@( indictmentallegedanumberofovertacts,includingtheformation % * oftheMDGTrust.Thetwosubstantivebankfraudcounts  correspondedtothetwobankloans,andtheconspiracycount @ coveredconductfromOctober1986toJune1988.Theindictment   alsocontainedanunrelatedfourthcountofbankfraudagainstNora `  Moraninconnectionwithherallegedinvolvementwithaloanmade  @ byFirstAmericantofinancethepurchaseofapropertylocatedon    MarlboroughStreetinBoston.@0@݌ `  Ќ   ` ThetrialcommencedonMay17,1999.Initscasein C  chief,whichlasted24days,thegovernmentpresentedevidence   purportingtodemonstratethatJohnMoranfraudulentlyhad c exploitedhispositionasthebank'sclosingattorneywithrespect  tothePuente/Boersnerprojectsbyfailingtodisclosehis 3 financialinterestinthem.Inparticular,theevidenceshowed  thatFirstAmerican'srecords,includingNoke'smemorandatothe S ExecutiveCommittee,didnotreflectanydisclosurebyJohnMoran 3 ofhisbrokeragearrangementwithPuenteandBoersnerorhisprofit s interestintheproperties.Forexample,theclosingsettlement S  statements,whichnotablyJohnMorandidnotsign,indicatedonly " thathereceivedlegalfees.Further,therecorddidnotcontain #!s$ anydocumentaryevidencedisclosinghisstatusasMDGTrust "& beneficiary. C$(  ` Significantly,Noketestifiedinthegovernment'scase &&v!* thatJohnMorandidnotinformhimofhiseconomicinterestinthe '#, Puente/Boersnerprojectsbeforetheloansweresubmittedtothe F)$. ExecutiveCommitteeforapproval.Nokeclaimedthatifhedulyhad *&&0 beennotifiedhewouldhavepreparedaninsidertransactionreport f,'2 forthebank;nosuchreportwasintroducedattrial.Ragalevsky  andAdamstestifiedthatregardlessofhispossibledisclosureto @ Noke,JohnMoranwasrequiredtonotifyupperlevelmanagementin   writingofhisfinancialstakeintheprojectstosatisfyhis `  professionaldutyasthebank'sattorney;nosuchwritten  @ disclosurewasintroducedattrial.Thegovernmentalsoelicited    testimonyfromanumberofotherwitnessesonthenatureofthe `  professionaldutiesJohnMoranowedtoFirstAmerican,aswellas   JohnMoran'sowntestimonyfromanothertrialacknowledgingthe 0  ethicalandlegaldutiesofafiduciary.   ` GovernmentwitnessesdescribedwithrespecttoNoraMoran  thedutiesadirectorowestoabank,suchasthatoffullandfair 3 disclosureofanyfactsmaterialtothebank'sinterests.The  governmentalsointroducedevidencedemonstratingherinvolvement S inthePuente/Boersnerloans(visitingtheprojectsitesand 3 executingtheMDGTrustdocument)andherfailuretoinformany s bankofficialofherhusband'soutsideinterestsregardingthe S  properties.Further,thegovernmentattemptedtoshowthatNora " MoranvotedtoapprovetheloansattheJanuary15,1987Boardof #!s$ Directorsmeetingonthetheorythatitwasroutinepracticefor "& loansapprovedbytheExecutiveCommitteetobesubmittedtothe C$( BoardofDirectorsforratificationormodification. %#!*  ` Atthecloseofthegovernment'scase,theMoransmade '#,  motionsforjudgmentsofacquittalunderFed.R.Crim.P.29.The F)$. courtgrantedNoraMoran'smotionwithrespecttocountfour,% #  6      ׀but   deniedthemotionsastotheremainingcounts.Inthedefense @ case,JohnMorantestifiedtohavingmadefullandtimely   disclosureofhisoutsidepecuniaryinterestinthebankloansto `  Noke.JohnMoranalsotestifiedthatinNovember1986,hehad  @ engagedinasimilartransactioninwhichhefunctionedasthe    closingattorneyforFirstAmericanandneverthelessreceiveda `  $100,000finder'sfeefromtheborrower.Heclaimedthathehad   disclosedthisearlierconflictofinteresttoWilliamCollins,the 0  bank'sloanofficerontheNovember1986loan.   ` Oncrossexamination,JohnMoranindicatedthathehad  sentacheckfor$18,750tohiswifeviaherrealestatecompanyon 3 January15,1987,theverydayoftheBoardofDirectorsmeetingat  issueinthiscase.JohnMorandidnotindicateonthecheckwhat S thepaymentrepresented,thoughitwashiscommonpracticetodo 3 so.ThegovernmentsoughttodemonstratethattheMoransroutinely s commingledtheirbusinessfinancesduringtherelevanttimeperiod. S  NoraMoranpresentedonlyonewitnessinherdefense,aneconomics " expertwhodiscussedthegeneralbankingandrealestateclimate #!s$ duringtherelevanttimeperiod.ThegovernmentcalledWilliam "& Collinsasitsrebuttalwitness.Hetestifiedthathehadno C$( recollectionoftheNovember1986loanaboutwhichJohnMoran %#!* testifiedorofanydisclosureJohnMoranmadeastohisfinder's c'", fee. (C$.  ` Atthecloseofalltheevidence,theMoransagainmoved  forjudgmentsofacquittal.Thecourtreserveditsrulingand @ chargedthejurywhich,onJuly14,1999,returnedguiltyverdicts   onthethreeremainingcountsagainsttheMorans.Thereafter,the `  MoransfiledposttrialmotionsunderFed.R.Crim.P.29(c)  @ seekingjudgmentsofacquittal.Thedistrictcourtreceived    memorandaanddrafttranscriptsfromallpartiesandonJuly13, `  2000,onthebasisofthesubmissionsissuedthedecisionandorder   fromwhichthegovernmentappeals,enteringajudgmentofacquittal 0  onallcountsforwantofevidentiarysupport.Thecourtmadeits  rulingconsideringonlytheevidenceintroducedonthegovernment's P directcaseratherthanonthefulltrialrecord,citingtoFed.R. 0 Crim.P.29(b),whichmandatesthatacourtrevisitingareserved p motionforjudgmentofacquittalmayconsideronlyevidence P introducedasofthetimethatthecourtreservedrulingonthe  motion.  p  ` ThecourtconcludedthatNoke'stestimonyandtheabsence S  ofbankrecordsdocumentingJohnMoran'stimelydisclosureofhis " brokerageandprofitarrangementcouldnotsustainJohnMoran's #!s$ convictionsonthesubstantivebankfraudcountsasthedefense "& successfullyhaddemonstrateddefectsinNoke'smemoryandwork C$( performanceandinFirstAmerican'srecordkeepingpractices.The %#!* courtfurtherconcludedthatthegovernmentfailedtoshowthat c'", NoraMoranparticipatedinanyvoteonorotherwisefacilitatedthe (C$. approvalofthePuente/Boersnerloansandthattheevidence *%0 thereforewasinsufficienttosustaintheverdictsconvictingher ,c'2 ofsubstantivebankfraud.Thecourtdidnotconsideranaiding  andabettingtheoryofliability.Finally,thecourtconcluded @ thatthegovernment'sfailuretoprovetheunderlyingsubstantive   offenseswasfataltotheconspiracyconvictionsofbothMorans. `  ThegovernmenttimelyfiledanoticeofappealonAugust10,2000.  @ Wehavejurisdictionoveranappealfromafinaljudgmentofthe    districtcourtpursuantto28U.S.C.1291and18U.S.C.3731, #  7       `  andthedistrictcourtexercisedsubjectmatterjurisdiction   pursuantto18U.S.C.3231. 0  @hh#II.DISCUSSION c  `  A.StandardandScopeofReview F  ` Wereview  |h  Rule29determinationsdenovo.UnitedStates ) v.Carroll,105F.3d740,742(1stCir.1997).Atboththetrial i andappellatelevel,acourtmustdetermine"whether,after I assayingalltheevidenceinthelightmostamiabletothe  government,andtakingallreasonableinferencesinitsfavor,a i rationalfactfindercouldfind,beyondareasonabledoubt,thatthe  prosecutionsuccessfullyprovedthe%  %jessentialelementsofthe @ crime."UnitedStatesv.O'Brien,14F.3d703,706(1stCir.   1994).Underthisformulation,acourtconsidersalltheevidence, `  directandcircumstantial,andresolvesallevidentiaryconflicts  @ infavoroftheverdict.Carroll,105F.3dat742.Thus,wedo    notweighthecredibilityofthewitnessesor"assesswhetherthe `  prosecutionsucceededineliminatingeverypossibletheory   consistentwiththedefendant'sinnocence."UnitedStatesv. 0  RiveraRuiz,244F.3d263,266(1stCir.2001)(internalquotation  indicationomitted).Accordingly,aslongastheguiltyverdict P findssupportina"plausiblerenditionoftherecord,"itmust 0 stand.UnitedStatesv.Ortiz,966F.2d707,711(1stCir.1992). |hh݌ p Ќ   ` Wedealinitiallywiththeproceduralissueattributable  tothedistrictcourt'sanchoringitsanalysisintherecordasit 3 existedattheendofthegovernment'scaseinchief.Inthis  regardweholdthatourreviewshouldencompasstherecordofthe S  entiretrialratherthanbeingconfinedonlytothedirectevidence 3" presentedbythegovernment.Fed.R.Crim.P.29(b)permitsa s!$ courttoreservedecidingamotionforjudgmentofacquittaluntil #S& afterajuryrendersitsverdict;ifthecourtchoosestodoso, $( whenrevisitingthemotionitmayconsideronlytherecordasit #&s!* stoodatthetimeitreserveditsruling. #  8      ׀ '#,  ` Thedistrictcourt,however,deniedratherthanreserved  itsrulingontheMorans'initialRule29motionswithrespectto @ countsonethroughthreeatthecloseofthegovernment'scase.   TheMoransthenintroducedevidence,andthegovernmentintroduced `  additionalevidenceinrebuttal.Atthecloseoftrial,theMorans  @ againmadeRule29motionsonwhichthecourtdidreserveits    ruling,allowingittoactsubstantivelyonthemotionsafterthe `  juryreturneditsverdict.Atthatpointthecourtcouldnotact   ontheoriginalmotionsforacquittaladjudicatedafterthe 0  government'scaseinchiefandthuswasrequiredtoconsiderthe  fullrecordwhenactingontheMorans'secondmotionsfor P acquittal. 0  ` Wearesatisfiedthatsimplybylabelingitsposttrial  Rule29rulingasareconsiderationandreversalofitsearlier S Rule29ruling,thecourtcouldnotrelatebackthetimewhenit  reserveditsrulingonthemotionsmadeattheendofallthe @ evidencetothepointatwhichitdeniedthefirstmotionsfor   acquittal.Afterall,ifitcoulddosoiteffectivelywould `  circumventtheexplicitrequirementinRule29(b)thatifacourt  @ "reservesdecision,itmustdecidethemotiononthebasisofthe    evidenceatthetimetherulingwasreserved."Moreover,ifthe `  courtcoulddenyamotionforacquittalattheendofthe   government'scaseinchiefandthengrantitonreconsideration,as 0  apracticalmattertherewouldbenodistinctionbetweendenyinga  motionforacquittalorreservingarulingonitforeitherwaythe P courtsubsequentlycouldgrantthemotiononastaticrecord. 0  ` B.BankFraudChargesAgainstJohnMoran(CountsTwo󀀀  ЀandThree)   ` Toprovebankfraudunder18U.S.C.1344,the  governmentmustshowthatthedefendants:(1)engagedinascheme Q orartificetodefraudorobtainmoneybymeansofmateriallyfalse 1 statementsormisrepresentations;(2)fromafederallyinsured q! financialinstitution;and,(3)didsoknowingly.UnitedStatesv. !Q# Kenrick,221F.3d19,30(1stCir.)(enbanc),cert.denied,531 "% U.S.1042,121S.Ct.639(2000). #  9      ׀Wehavedefined"intentto !$q' defraud"as"anintenttodeceivethebankinordertoobtainfrom  itmoneyorotherproperty."Id.Ingeneral,ascertainingwhether @ aschemeisfraudulent"ismeasuredinaparticularcaseby   determiningwhethertheschemedemonstratedadeparturefrom `  fundamentalhonesty,moraluprightness,orfairplayandcandid  @ dealingsinthegenerallifeofthecommunity."UnitedStatesv.    Brandon,17F.3d409,424(1stCir.1994)(quotingUnitedStates `  v.Goldblatt,813F.2d619,624(3dCir.1987)).Welooktothe   entirecircumstancesofthedefendants'conductandanyinferences 0  drawntherefromasanindicationoftheirintent.SeeId.at425.  Furthermore,thebankneednotbetheimmediatevictimofthe P fraudulentschemeandneednothavesufferedactuallosssolongas 0 therequisiteintentisestablishedandthebankwasexposedtoa p riskofloss.SeeUnitedStatesv.Barrett,178F.3d643,648(2d P Cir.1999);seealsoUnitedStatesv.BlasiniLluberas,169F.3d  57,65(1stCir.1999)("Thegovernmentneednotproveactualloss  p asaresultofthescheme....").Wealsonotethateach   distinctexecutionofaschemetodefraudconstitutesaseparate @" indictableoffense,forinstancewhere,ashere,thegovernment  $  chargesthatmultipleandseparateloanswereobtainedtofinance `"& multipleandseparaterealestatetransactions.Brandon,17F.3d   at422.   ` Consideringtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorableto s the%  %ygovernmentanddrawingallreasonableinferencesinfavorof  S theverdict,weconcludethatajurywellcouldhavefoundbeyond   areasonabledoubtthatJohnMoranknowinglyexecutedaschemeto # s  defraudFirstAmerican.Asitsclosingattorneyonthe   Puente/Boersnerloans,hehadadutytorepresentitsinterests C  which,attheabsolutenadirofpotentialdischarge,requiredhim #  toinformthebankthatasthemortgagebrokerhestoodtoreap c 1.5%ofanysuccessfullyborrowedamounts.See,e.g.,United C Statesv.DeLaMata,266F.3d1275,1293(11thCir.2001)(bank  officialsoweafiduciarydutytothebankanditsdepositors, c whichobligatestheavoidanceoffraud,badfaith,usurpationof  corporateopportunities,andselfdealing);UnitedStatesv. 3 Silvano,812F.2d754,759(1stCir.1987).Likewise,hewas  requiredtodisclosehisdivergentprofitstakeintherealestate S  projectsthattheloansfinanced. #  10      ׀Therewasampleevidencefor 3" thejurytoconcludethatJohnMoranwasawareofhisprofessional  responsibilitiesbutdidnotmeetthem. @  ` Noke,theloanofficerwhorepresentedthebankinthe #s transactions,testifiedthathedidnotrecallJohnMoranmaking   anydisclosuresconcerninghistwofoldfinancialarrangementwith C  PuenteandBoersner.Hislackofrecollectionisnotablefortwo  #  reasons:(1)circumstanceswherethebank'sclosingattorneyalso c  functionedasamortgagebrokerforandcopartnerwiththebank's C  clientsinthesametransactionwererare,andthejuryreasonably   couldhavebalancedthisunusualcircumstanceagainstthefactthat c nothingaboutthePuente/BoersnerloansstoodoutinNoke'smind;  (2)insiderarrangementsofthisnaturetypicallytriggeredgreater 3 scrutinyandgeneratedspecialpaperwork.Accordingly,theabsence  ofbankrecordsdocumentingJohnMoran'soutsidearrangementswas S anotherfactorthatthejurycouldtakeintoaccountinconcluding 3 thathehadconcealedthedetailsofhisrelationshipwithPuente s andBoersner.O #  11      ׀Moreover,incontrastthegovernmentintroduced S  insiderloanrecordsfromJune1986showingthatElizabeth  Finnegan,atrusteeofFirstAmerican,disclosedherfinancial @ interestasaprincipalinAmericanHealthways,Inc.d/b/a   Nightingalebeforeavotewastakentoconsiderincreasingthe `  company'slineofcredit.  @  ` TheMorans,particularlyJohnMoran,mountedthree  #  principallinesofattackagainstthegovernment'snondisclosure c  theory:(1)manyofthebank'srecordsfromtherelevanttime C  periodwereindisarrayormissing;(2)Noke'stestimonywas   underminedtotheextentthathecouldnotrecallsignificant c detailsaboutthetransactionsorparticipantsinquestionandby  thefactthatnearly10yearshadpassedfromthetimethatthe 3 loanswereclosed;(3)JohnMorantestifiedthathehadmadethe  appropriatedisclosures.Thelastfactiscritical.  5  Thougha S criminaldefendantbyrightmayopttotestify,see18U.S.C. 3 3481;Rockv.Arkansas,483U.S.44,5153,107S.Ct.2704,2709 s (1987),hedoessoathisorherownperil.See,e.g.,United S  Statesv.Dunnigan,507U.S.87,9398,113S.Ct.1111,111619 " (1993).5P݌ #!s$ Ќ   ` ThegovernmentdiscreditedJohnMoran'stestimonythathe #V& haddisclosedhis$100,000finder'sfeefromtheNovember1986loan $( forwhichhealsorepresentedFirstAmericanatclosingbycalling &&v!* inrebuttaltheloanofficerinvolvedwho,likeNoke,didnot  recallJohnMoranmakinganydisclosureofaconflictofinterest. @ Thattestimony,coupledwiththeuniquevantageofthejuryto   assessJohnMoran'sdemeanorandmakekeycredibility `  determinationsconcerninghisveracityandattentiontodetailas  @ measuredagainstthelackofindependentcorroborationforhis    testimony,permittedthejury,onbalance,todisbelieveJohnMoran `  ontheonehandandcreditNokeontheotherirrespectiveofany   gapsorarguableinconsistenciesinNoke'stestimony.See,e.g., 0  UnitedStatesv.Romero,32F.3d641,646(1stCir.1994)  (appellatecourtdoesnot Ssecondguessthejury'sdecisiontocredit P testimonywhichcontainsaninconsistencybecauseit"wouldusurp 0 thejury'sroletorejectitsdecisiontobelieveordisbelievea p witnessbecauseofsuchinconsistencies"). #  12      ׀ P  ` InasmuchasajurycouldconcludethatJohnMoranfailed  todisclosehisbrokerrelationshipwithPuenteandBoersnerand  p hisinterestintheirprojects,therecordsupportsaconclusion   thatJohnMoranrefrainedfrommakingthedisclosuresknowingly, @" affirmatively,andwithaclearmotivetosecureafinancial  $ windfallatthebank'spotentialexpense.AsanattorneyforFirst `"& American,JohnMoranwaspositioneduniquelytoexpeditethe #@( processbywhichPuenteandBoersnercouldobtainfinancingfor % * theirdevelopmentprojects,forinstancebybypassingconventional '`", bureaucraticimpedimentstoarrangecriticalmeetingswithbank (#. loanofficialsandinspectionsoftheproperties.Atthesame  time,asanexperiencedrealestateattorney,JohnMoranwaswell @ awarethatdisclosureofhisdual,conflictingbrokerclient   relationshipwiththeloanprincipalsandofhisdirectinterestin `  theprofitsgeneratedbytheirdevelopmentprojectscould  @ jeopardizehisstakeintheventure. #  13      ׀Infact,theconsiderable    extenttowhichJohnMoranstoodtobenefitfromtheloans-- `  $250,000inbrokerfeesand20%ofprofits--isfurtherprobative   ofhismotivetoconcealfactsthatwerepotentially 0  outcome-determinativewithrespecttoapprovaloftheloans.   ` SupportforaconclusionthatJohnMorandeliberatelyand P deceptivelyconcealedmaterialinformationissuppliedalsobythe 0 activestepshetooktoeliminateapapertrailconnectinghimself p totheloansandtherebyavertinquiryfrombankofficials. P Specifically,JohnMoranrecruitedhiswifetofunctionastheonly  declarant-trusteeontheMDGTrustwhich,beingaMassachusetts  p BusinessTrust,doesnotdiscloseasamatterofpublicrecordthe   identityofitsbeneficiaries.Thus,JohnMoranwasnotlinked @" clearlytotheentity.WhenPuenteandBoersnercreatedtheBoston  $ CommonwealthTrustandthe7682RutlandSquareTrusttocollect `"& theloanproceedsandtaketitletotheirproperties,atJohn  Moran'sbehesttheydesignatedMDGasa20%beneficiary.However, @ therewerenosignaturesofanyonepurportingtorepresentMDGon   thedocumentssettingupthetwotrusts.Consequently,whena `  letterfromanattorneyforPuenteandBoersnerdisclosedtoFirst  @ AmericanthatMDGwasoneofthreebeneficiariesofthetrustthat    wastakingtitletotheCommonwealthAvenueproperty,JohnMoran `  wasinsulatedbecausethebankdidnothaveinformationlinkinghim   toMDG.TofurthermaintainhisanonymitywithrespecttoMDG, 0  JohnMorandidnotsubmitthecustomarypostclosingsettlement  statementsoranyrecordsregardingthetrusteesorbeneficiaries P oftheMDGTrust.See  ^  ,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Cauble,706F.2d 0 1322,1355(5thCir.1983)(consideringdefendant's"disregardfor p thebank'sroutinepractices"relevanttointenttodefraud).^y݌ P Ќ   ` Insum,therewassufficientevidencetoallowarational  jurytoconclude,beyondareasonabledoubt,thatJohnMoran  p concealedhisfinancialarrangementswithPuenteandBoersnernot   astheproductofagoodfaith,honestoversightbutrather @" pursuanttoanaffirmativeendeavorcalculatedtodefraudFirst  $ American.AstheevidencesupportstheconclusionthatJohn `"& Moran'sconductrosetothelevelofaknowing"schemeorartifice" #@( todefraud,thebankfraudconvictionsreturnedagainsthimmustbe % * reinstated. '`", { ` C.BankFraudChargesAgainstNoraMoran(CountsTwo󀀀 (#. ЀandThree) h)$/  ` Werecognizethatthegovernment'sbankfraudcase *H&1 againstNoraMoranwasnotasstrongasthatagainstJohnMoran. ,'3 InthisregarditisnotclearthatattheJanuary15,1987meeting  ofFirstAmerican'sBoardofDirectors,NoraMoranparticipatedin @ adispositivevoteontheloans.Thoughthegovernmentadvanceda   theorythatavotewastakentoratifythePuente/Boersnerloans, `  itappearsthattheBoardrubberstampedasamereformalitya  @ summaryreportofloanstheExecutiveCommitteehadapprovedin    December.Moreover,itisnotclearthattheBoardofDirectorsat `  thattimehadthepowertorejecttheExecutiveCommittee'sloan   decisions. 0   ` Nevertheless,thedistrictcourterredfortwo  independentreasonswhenitgrantedNoraMoranajudgmentof P acquittaloncountstwoandthree.Tobeginwith,withoutregard 0 forwhattranspiredonJanuary15,1987,I #  14      ׀arationaltrieroffact p couldhavefoundthatNoraMoran,whoadmittedtoRagalevskyand P Adamsthatshewasawareofherhusband'soutsidedealingsand  arrangementsconcerningtheprojectspriortotheconsummationof  p thetransactionsatissue,chosenottodisclosetheconflictsto   theappropriatebankofficialsinhercapacityasbankdirector @" becausesheanticipatedthatafinancialwindfallwouldaccrueto  $ herhusband(andbyextensiontoher)shouldtheloansbeapproved `"& andfearedthatadisclosurewouldunderminetheapprovalprocess. #@(  ` Moreover,therewassignificantevidencetendingto  establishNoraMoran'sknowing,activeparticipationinthe @ fraudulentscheme:NoraMoranaccompaniedherhusband,Puente,   Boersner,Noke,andaconstructioninspectortovisittheproject `  sitesinNovember1986beforetheloanapplicationsweresubmitted  @ asproposalsorapproved;ameretwodaysbeforetheExecutive    Committeeapprovedtheloans,shesignedthepapersestablishing `  theMDGTrustwhichfunctionedasarepositoryforthe20%interest   intheprofitsgeneratedbythePuente/Boersnerdevelopment 0  projects;JohnMoran'ssecretary,ElizabethLongo,ordinarily  servedasatrusteeforhisrealestatetransactions,suggesting P thatsuchabreakfromroutinelikelywouldhavesparkedamodicum 0 ofinquiryfromNoraMoranastothepurposefortheformationof p MDG;JohnandNoraMoransharedfinancialmatters,includingfiling P jointtaxreturnsandtransferringfundsbetweentheirseparate  businessventures;and,NoraMoranwasanastuterealestatebroker  p andbankdirectorfamiliarwiththeaffirmativedutiesof   disclosuregoverningfiduciarieswhenconfrontedwithbank @" transactionsthataffectedthempersonally.H #  15      ׀  $  ` Consideredtogether,theforegoingfactsjustifieda `"&  conclusionthatNoraMoranknewofherhusband'sstakeinthe #@( outcomeoftheloans #  16      ׀andunderstoodthatfederalbanking   regulations,FirstAmerican'sCodeofProfessionalEthics,andher @ common-lawfiduciarystatusasabankdirectorrequiredhertomake   theappropriatedisclosures.(@ #  17      ׀Neverthelessshechosenotto `  divulgetheinformationtomaintainthefalseimpressionthatthe  @ loanswerenottaintedorsuspectinanysignificantway.     ` Werecognize,asemphasizedbythedistrictcourt,that `  NoraMoran'sconductmaynothavedirectlyinducedFirstAmerican   toallocatethe$17millioninloanstoPuenteandBoersneror 0  otherwisehaveinfluencedanyoneinvolvedinthelending  decision-makingprocess.K  #  18      ׀However,afindingthatherconducthad P suchanimpactwasnotrequiredforaconvictionofbankfraudin 0 thiscase.See,e.g.,Kenrick,221F.3dat29(actualrelianceby p thebank"plainlyha[s]noplaceinthefederalfraudstatutes") P (quotingNederv.UnitedStates,527U.S.1,25,119S.Ct.1827,  1841(1999)).Nor,asNoraMoransuggestsisthecase,couldthe  p evidenceestablishonlythatshebreachednothingmorethana   fiduciarydutyowedtoFirstAmericanwhichconduct,standing  alone,purportedlycannotconstitutebankfraudasamatterof @ law. #  19      ׀Rather,theevidencesupportedaconclusionthatNoraMoran   knowinglyexecutedtheschemetodefraudFirstAmericanthroughher `  deceptiveacts(forexample,signingthetrustdocumentsforthe  @ entityholdingthe20%profitinterest)andomissions(deliberately    concealinginformationthatmighthavedelayedorterminatedthe `  loanreviewprocess)andthereforewasasufficientbasisonwhich   thejurycouldconvictherforbankfraud. 0   ` Alternatively,thesefactsmakeouttheessential  elementsofaidingandabettingliabilityforbankfraud.  #  20      ׀Thus, P evenifNoraMorandidnotexecuteorattempttoexecutethe 0 scheme,therewassufficientevidencetoconcludebeyonda p reasonabledoubtthatshewillfullyaidedandabettedJohnMoran's P fraudbyassociatingherselfwithhisventureandseekingbyher  actionstomakeitsucceed.See18U.S.C.2;seealsoUnited  p Statesv.Colon-Munoz,192F.3d210,223(1stCir.1999)._   Furthermore,theevidencewassufficientonwhichtopremiseNora  Moran'sculpablestateofmindforaidingandabettingliabilityto @ theextentthatsheconsciouslysharedherhusband'sknowledgeof   theunderlyingcriminalschemeandintendedtoparticipateinit `  forthepurposeofbringingaboutfinancialgain.  @  ` D.ConspiracyChargesAgainstJohnandNoraMoran󀀀    Ѐ(CountOne) X  H    ` Finally,wefindthatthegovernmentofferedsufficient (  evidencetoconvictboth_Morans_Ԁoftheconspiracytocommitbank h  fraudunder18U.S.C.371.Asweelaboratedpreviously,the H  evidencesupportedaconclusionthatthe_Morans_Ԁagreedto  participateinaschemetodefraudFirstAmericanforthecommon h goalofpersonalpecuniarygain, #  21      ׀knowinglyandvoluntarily  participatedintheconspiracy,andtookatleastoneaffirmative 8 overtactinfurtheranceoftheconspiracy.See_Blasini_Ԅ_Lluberas_,  169F.3dat67. Accordingly,thejuryverdictontheconspiracy X countmustbereinstated._ #  22      _Ԁ 8 Ї  III.CONCLUSION  3 ` Fortheforegoingreasons,wereversethejudgmentsof @ acquittal,reinstatetheconvictionsoncountsone,two,andthree,   andremandthecasetothedistrictcourtforfurtherproceedings. `       #      #win      #      #\win      ݌̌    ` Reversedandremanded.  @  @ (ConcurringOpinionfollows.) ` XڣXXXڣ3OY ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge(concurring).JohnMoranandNora @ Moranwerechargedwithbankfraudunder18U.S.C.1344,371  (2000).Thejuryfoundbothdefendantsguilty,butthedistrict ` courtgrantedamotionforacquittalastobothdefendants.The  governmenthasappealed.Myconcerniswiththeevidenceagainst 0 NoraMoran.   ` Thegovernment'sprimarytheoryinthetrialwasthat P  NoraMoran,asadirectorofthebank,hadvotedtoapprovecertain 0" loanswithoutdisclosingherhusband'sinterestinthem.Inthe p!$ alternative,thegovernmentarguedthatNoraMoranhadan #P& independentdutytodiscloseherhusband'sparticipationonboth $( sidesofthebankloanandthat,becauseshefosteredJohn'sfraud  (asdescribedbelow),shewasguiltyofaidingandabetting.The @ districtcourt'sopiniondirectinganacquittaldiscussedthe   votingtheorywhichitfoundunsupportedbytheevidence,butit `  notdiscussthegovernment'salternativetheories.  @  ` Onappeal,thepanel'sreinstatementofthejury's    verdictdoesnotrelyonthegovernment'sprimarytheory,namely, `  thatNoravotedontheloan.Asthepanelopinionpointsout,   thereisnoclearproofthatNoraknowinglyvotedontheloan 0  benefittingherhusband#XڣXXXڣ#XڣXXXڣ.TheonlyevidenceisthatNora  participatedinaboardofdirectors'votethatrubberstampedthe P approvalofasummaryreportoftheloansmadeintheprevious 0 month.Asummaryreportcontainedonlyheadlinenumbersanddid p notspecifytheunderlyingloansandtheirdetails. P  ` Tosustainthejury'sverdictasagainstthedistrict  court'sjudgmentsofacquittal,onemustrelyonthegovernment's  p alternativearguments.Underonetheory,Norafailed(asa   fiduciary)torevealherhusband'sdoubledealingandtherefore @" committedfraudbythatnondisclosure;underthe(sounder)aiding  $ andabettingversionofthetheory,shealsotookpositivesteps `"& suchassigningthepaperstoestablishthebusinesstrustthatwas #@( usedtoconcealthe_Morans_'interestintheloanstofurther % * John'sfraud.Ineithercase,itwasnecessaryforthebankfraud '`", convictiontoprovethatNoraactedwithintenttodefraud.United (#.  Statesv._Kenrick_,221F.3d19,30(1stCir.)(enbanc),cert. 0*%0 denied,531U.S.961(2000),andcert.denied,531U.S.1042  (2000). @   ` ThisculpablestateofmindwithrespecttoNoradepends   onprovingfourfacts:first,thatNoraknewofJohn's `  participationonbothsidesofthetransaction;second,thatshe  @ knewthatJohnhadnotdisclosedhisconflictofinteresttothe    bank;third,thatsheknewthatshehadanobligationtodisclose `  John'spositionifJohndidnotmaketherequisitedisclosure;and   fourth,thatsheacteddishonestlyratherthannegligentlyin 0  failingtodisclose.Thesecondconditionisdoubtfuland,ifthe  secondfails,thefourth(whichdependsontheotherthree)alsois P infirm. 0  ` NoracertainlyknewthatJohnwasactingforthe p borrowers;thereisclearevidenceonthispoint.Whatisless P cleariswhethersheknewthatJohnwasactingforthebankas  _well;butthiscanprobablybeinferredfromherstatementthatshe  p hadunderstoodthatJohnhaddisclosedhisinteresttothebank.   IfJohnwasnotalsoactingforthebank,hewouldhardlyhave @" neededtomentiontohiswifehisallegeddisclosuretothebank  $ sincetherewouldhavebeennothingtodisclose. `"&  ` OnthesecondconditionthatNoraknewofJohn'sfailure #@( todisclosethegovernment'sevidenceisextremelythin.Clearly % * suchafactualpredicateisessential:itwouldbequiteastretch '`", toholdNoracriminallyliableforfailingtomakeanindependent (#. disclosuretothebank,eventhoughshebelievedthatJohnhad 0*%0 disclosedhisinterestintheproject.Theonlyevidenceasto +'2 whetherJohntoldherhehaddisclosedhisinteresttothebankis  Nora'sclaimthathesaidhehad.#XڣXXXڣ#ThestatementwasmadebyNora @ priortotrialandrecordedbyathirdparty.Although   inadmissiblehearsayifofferedbyNora,therecordationwas `  offeredintoevidencebythegovernmentforitsownpurposes.XڣXXXڣ  @  ` Ofcourse,thejurymayhavedisbelievedherstatement,    madeafterthefacttobankattorneysinvestigatingtheMorans' `  involvementwiththeloans,asaposthocattemptatexculpation.   Itisnotclearwhatbasisthejurywouldhavehadforsucha 0  rejection.Johncertainlycouldhavemadesuchastatementtohis  wife,truthfullyornot;andNoradidnottestifyattrialsoher P demeanorwasnotsubjecttoassessment.Still,thejurycould 0 simplynothavebelievedNora'sstatement. p  ` Wecanneverknowwhetherthejuryfoundfraudulent P intentbasedonthistheory.Attrial,thegovernmentconcentrated  primarilyonthehopelesstheorythatNorahadvotedontheloan  p eventhoughitpresenteditsalternativetheoriesaswell.Yetin   thiscourtNoradoesnotarguethatevidenceoffraudulentintent @" wasentirelylackingbutarguesthatherfailuretodisclosewas  $ notmaterial,anunpersuasivepositiongiventhereachofthe `"& materialityconcept.Itisnoteasytosupportthedistrict #@( court'sresultonthebasisofdoubtsnotreliedonbythedistrict % * courtingrantingthemotion,norurgedbythedefendantherselfon '`", thisappeal. (#. #XڣXXXڣG#XڣXXXڣ ` BecauseNoramovedforanewtrialinthedistrictcourt 0*%0 Єamotioninitiallymootedbythedirectedjudgmentofacquittal +'2 thatmotionremainstobeconsideredbythedistrictcourton  remand.Thedistrictcourt,alreadydisposedtograntanacquittal @ outright,maywellbeinclinedtograntanewtrialonweightof   theevidencegrounds.UnitedStatesv.MontillaRivera,115F.3d `  1060,1067(1stCir.1997).Giventhecollapseofthegovernment's  @ primaryvotingtheoryandthethinfactualsupportforthe    fraudulentnondisclosureclaimagainstNora,anewtrialforNora `  mightbeamplyjustified,assumingthatthegovernment'sasserted   objectiontothetimelinessofthenewtrialmotioncanbe 0  overcome.#XڣXXXڣ##