at 19, addresses not intent, but the separate jurisdictional requirement in bank fraud cases brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) that the crime be “fraudulently ‘to obtain’ assets ‘owned by’ a financial institution.” United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 2010) (conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) could not be sustained on theory that bank owned assets of subsidiary that was subject of fraud). Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 20 Filed 05/20/13 Page 29 of 31 Page ID #:521 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RMBS and CDOs and the high fees and profits those ratings generated.”

24. WHEREFORE, the United States requests, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345, that the Court issue a temporary restraining order and an injunction, restraining defendant, pending the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminarily injunction, from further violating 18 U.S.C.§ 1341 (Mail Fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), and 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Bank Fraud) through the use of Registered Bonded Promissory Notes and other related documents as more fully described in the Proposed Temporary Restraining Order. Dated this 13th day ofMay, 2010.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Bank fraud is committed when one knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice to : (1) a scheme to defraud; (2) use of the wires, radio or television in furtherance of the scheme; and (3) specific intent to defraud 18 U.S.C. § 1344; United States v. McNeil, supra, 320 F.3d at 1037; see also 9th Cir. Crim. Jury Inst. 8.

However, "only financial institutions have standing to allege bank fraud violations as RICO predicate acts." Id.; see also W. Tex. Nat’l Bank, 2013 WL 2158947, at *6 ("[C]ourts have consistently found that only financial institutions may claim bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 as a predicate act for RICO purposes.").

The closely analogous domestic federal bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, imposes liability on whoever “knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice . . . to defraud a financial institution.” 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1). This provision requires specific intent to defraud a bank.

Count Seven of the S6 Indictment now also charges Lebedev with this offense. • Count Eight of the S6 Indictment adds a new charge of substantive bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349 and 2, against Anthony Murgio and Lebedev. • Count Eleven of the S6 Indictment adds a new charge of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, against Anthony Murgio.

CARDONA Acting United States Attorney O'BRIEN United States Attorney iminal Division States Attorney Branch Office · - 19 - ?7 Case 8:07-cv-00397-AG-AN Document 96-2 Filed 12/16/16 Page 20 of 20 Page ID #:640 EXHIBIT ''B'' Case 8:07-cv-00397-AG-AN Document 96-3 Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:641 case 8:07-cr-00052-CJC Document 98 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 4 PagJID #:292 1 2 3 4 5 l~~ 6 17 l: 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRIC.T OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 Piaintiff, SA CR No. 07-52(A)-CJC E l. R g T 13 v. S U P E R S E D I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 14 MOHSEN KIKALAYE, and AHMAD KIKALAYE, [18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2): Bank . Fraud; 18 U.S.C. § 2: Causing an Act to be Done] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. 22 23 Defendants.

Plaintiff also believed the Bank’s conduct was in violation of the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes, 18 USC §§ 1341 and 1343. Plaintiff also believed the Bank’s conduct was in violation of the bank fraud statute, 18 USC § 1344, and of the securities fraud statute found at 18 USC § 1348. Plaintiff further believed that the Bank’s conduct violated rules and regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission including without limitation, those found in 17 CFR Parts 230 and 240.

The defining characteristic of a scheme to defraud is that it is “designed to deceive.” United States v. LeDonne, 21 F.3d 1418, 1426 (7th Cir. 1994) (interpreting bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344) (emphasis added); see United States v. Giles, 246 F.3d 966, 973 (7th Cir. 2001) (similar; interpreting mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341).1 A defendant must act “with specific intent to deceive or cheat, usually for the purpose of getting financial gain for one’s self or causing 1 As the Court has recognized, the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, “parallel the language of” the commodities fraud statute. Coscia, 100 F. Supp. 3d at 659; see, e.g., United States v. Doherty, 969 F.2d 425, 429 (7th Cir. 1992) (“‘scheme to defraud’ means the same thing under §§ 1341, 1343 and 1344”).

Defendants are in violation of federal criminal statutes including 18U.S.C. §1341, 18U.S.C. §1344, 18U.S.C. §1962(c), 18U.S.C.