United States v. Chanthaseng
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 26903, 274 F.3d 586, 2001 WL 1590172 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A position of trust, for the purposes of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, is determined by the actual professional or managerial discretion an employee exercises, even if that discretion exceeds their official job description or violates company policy. The enhancement applies if this position was used to significantly facilitate or conceal the offense.
Facts:
- Souphaphone Chanthaseng was promoted to vault teller and branch operations supervisor at Fleet Bank, with duties that included supervising junior tellers and accessing the bank's accounting system.
- Internal bank regulations required a senior teller to countersign 'rapid deposit tickets' but prohibited them from countersigning their own.
- Chanthaseng's branch manager violated these regulations by consistently permitting her to countersign her own rapid deposit tickets without review.
- Using this unsupervised authority, Chanthaseng created and approved fraudulent rapid deposit tickets for non-existent cash deposits, then transferred the phantom funds into accounts she controlled.
- During a surprise audit, she created a large balancing entry in the accounting system to temporarily hide the cash shortfall from auditors.
- When the bank's central office flagged the anomalous entry, her manager referred the inquiry to Chanthaseng for investigation.
- Chanthaseng used the opportunity of 'investigating' the matter to make further false entries, concealing her scheme from her manager.
Procedural Posture:
- Souphaphone Chanthaseng was prosecuted by the United States in a U.S. District Court.
- Chanthaseng pleaded guilty to three counts of making false bank statements.
- At the sentencing hearing, the district court applied a two-level upward adjustment to her offense level for abuse of a position of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3.
- Chanthaseng, as the appellant, appealed the sentencing enhancement to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where the United States was the appellee.
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 a bank employee who, contrary to internal policy but due to lax supervision, is given final authority over certain transactions and is tasked with investigating financial anomalies, occupy a 'position of trust' justifying a sentencing enhancement for abusing that trust to commit fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Singal, District Judge
Yes. A defendant occupies a position of trust if they are given substantial professional or managerial discretion, and the relevant inquiry is the actual authority they possessed in fact, not merely their official title or job description. The court reasoned that although Chanthaseng's actions violated bank policy, her manager’s lax supervision effectively granted her the discretionary authority to be the final decision-maker for rapid deposit transactions. This de facto discretion, which she used to facilitate her crime, is the hallmark of a position of trust. Furthermore, when her manager referred the investigation of the anomalous balancing entry to her, he entrusted her with a significant discretionary function, which she then abused to conceal her crime. Thus, both prongs of the test for the enhancement—occupying a position of trust and using it to facilitate or conceal the offense—were satisfied.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that the 'position of trust' analysis focuses on the de facto (actual) authority an individual wields, rather than their de jure (official) role. It establishes that an employer's failure to enforce internal controls can inadvertently create a position of trust for an employee, making them eligible for a sentencing enhancement if they exploit that unmonitored discretion. This precedent puts a burden on organizations to actively enforce their own policies, as a failure to do so can result in an employee's unauthorized actions being legally defined as an abuse of trust, even if those actions were expressly forbidden by company rules.
