Cite as: 522 U. S. 23 (1997)
Opinion of the Court
fraud" requirement into the misapplication proscription, the rule of lenity does not come into play in this case. See United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482, 499. Pp. 29-33.
96 F. 3d 964, affirmed.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
C. Richard Oren, by appointment of the Court, 520 U. S. 1114, argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
Lisa Schiavo Blatt argued the cause for the United States. With her on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Dellinger, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Daniel S. Goodman.*
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the meaning of § 490(a) (Pub. L. 99- 498), 100 Stat. 1491, as added, 20 U. S. C. § 1097(a) (1988 ed.), which declared it a felony "knowingly and willfully" to misapply student loan funds insured under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The United States acknowledges that § 1097(a) demanded allegation and proof of the defendant's intentional conversion of loan funds to his own use or the use of a third party. The question presented is whether § 1097(a) demanded, in addition, allegation and proof that the defendant specifically intended to injure or defraud someone—either the United States as loan guarantor, as the District Court read the measure, or another. We hold, in accord with the Court of Appeals, that specific intent to injure or defraud someone, whether the United States or another, is not an element of the misapplication of funds proscribed by § 1097(a).
I
The indictment in this case, App. 2-12, alleged the following facts. James and Laurenda Jackson owned and operated
*Lisa B. Kemler filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging reversal.
25
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007