Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 11 (1997)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

Cite as: 522 U. S. 23 (1997)

Opinion of the Court

ture, or history of § 1097(a) warrants importation of an "in-tent to defraud" requirement into the misapplication proscription. The rule of lenity, therefore, does not come into play. See United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482, 499 (1997). The Government need not charge or prove that Bates aimed to injure or defraud anyone, nor is it a defense that Bates hoped the Jacksons, the students, or someone else would pay the amount due the lenders so that the federal fisc would suffer no loss.

* * *

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is

Affirmed.

33

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

Last modified: October 4, 2007