In a unanimous decision in Thompson v. United States, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), issued last month, the US Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. ' 1014, which criminalizes "knowingly mak[ing] any false statement or report" to certain institutions and agencies, does not criminalize statements that are merely misleading but are not false. The ruling represents the latest setback to the US Department of Justice's efforts to prosecute white collar crime, following other significant rulings by the Roberts Court, including:
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) holding that the federal honest-services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. ' 1346, covers only bribery and kickback schemes;
- McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016) holding that under 18 U.S.C. ' 201(a)(3), a federal antibribery provision, "setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone qualify as an 'official act'";
- Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020) holding that a scheme that does not aim to obtain money or property could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud statutes; and
- Ciminelli v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 1121 (2023), holding that the federal wire fraud statute criminalizes schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests but not of "potentially valuable economic information necessary to make discretionary economic decisions."
Thompson is the latest in this series of decisions narrowing federal prosecutors' ability to prosecute fraud cases ' and the Court may not be done, even this term. The Court's 2024-2025 docket also includes Kousisis v. United States, in which the Court will consider whether the federal wire fraud statute applies to deception that causes the victim no financial harm.
Thompson Holds That "False" Does Not Mean "Misleading"
Patrick Thompson, a former Chicago alderman and the nephew and grandson of two former Chicago mayors, took out three loans from now defunct Washington Federal Bank for Savings, totaling $219,000. Thompson only signed the paperwork for the first loan, worth $110,000, but did not sign any documentation for the other two. After Thompson made only one payment on the loans in 2012, the bank failed and Mr. Thompson received an invoice from an FDIC-appointed servicing agent for the remaining $269,120.58 balance and interest on the loans.1 On two occasions, Thompson told the servicer that he borrowed $110,000 from the bank (the amount of the first loan)...
