Bell v. United States
462 U.S. 356 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), which prohibits the taking and carrying away of property from a bank with intent to steal or purloin, is not limited to common-law larceny and also proscribes the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses.
Facts:
- A Cincinnati man mailed a $10,000 check, endorsed for deposit, to his agent in Miami, but the agent never received it.
- Nelson Bell opened a savings account at Dade Federal Savings & Loan using his own name but providing a false address, birth date, and social security number.
- Later the same day, Bell deposited the stolen $10,000 check into his new account after altering the endorsement to show his account number.
- Dade Federal accepted the deposit but placed a 20-day hold on the funds.
- Once the hold expired, Bell returned to the bank, closed the account, and withdrew the entire balance of over $10,080 in cash.
Procedural Posture:
- Nelson Bell was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Bell.
- Bell, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction.
- The United States, as appellee, successfully petitioned for a rehearing en banc, meaning the case would be heard by the full panel of judges of the court of appeals.
- The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed Bell's conviction.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Bell's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), which uses the phrase "takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin," proscribe the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) proscribes the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses. The statute's language and legislative history demonstrate a congressional intent to reach beyond the narrow confines of common-law larceny. The words "steal or purloin" do not have an established common-law meaning and suggest a broader scope than larceny alone. Furthermore, the statute's protection extends to property "in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of" a bank, which is far broader than the strict possession requirement of common-law larceny. The purpose of the 1937 amendment that added this section was to close loopholes and protect bank assets from all forms of non-forcible takings, and a reading limited by "arcane and artificial" common-law distinctions would frustrate this clear congressional intent.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) should not be interpreted to proscribe the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses. Federal criminal statutes that duplicate effective state law enforcement should be construed narrowly. The legislative history of the Federal Bank Robbery Act shows that Congress's intent was limited; it initially addressed the specific problem of armed interstate bank robbers and, in 1934, expressly rejected a provision that would have covered false pretenses. The 1937 amendment was a narrow fix to cover theft by stealth, not a broad expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction into an area adequately handled by states. The Court's prior interpretation in Jerome v. United States supports this narrower reading, which respects the balance between federal and state law enforcement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the scope of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, establishing that § 2113(b) functions as a general federal bank theft statute for non-forcible takings. By rejecting the technical common-law distinction between larceny (taking possession without consent) and false pretenses (taking title through deceit), the Court simplified the statute's application. This interpretation gives federal prosecutors wider latitude to charge a range of financial crimes against banks that might otherwise be solely state-level offenses. Future cases involving theft from a federally insured institution will focus on the defendant's intent to steal and the act of taking, rather than the technical means by which the property was acquired.
Unlock the full brief for Bell v. United States