1. Whether a bank "insider " who acknowledged
receiving tangible economic benefits from a
$151,739.50 bank loan made to his business
associate, committed bank fraud, within the
meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. §§1344 and 2, in a
case where: (a) the borrower (a cooperating
government witness) never disclosed to the
"insider " that the tangible economic benefits he
received to satisfy a capital call obligation in a
prior bona fide business relationship came from
a loan made by the "insider 's" bank, and (b) the
"insider " played no role in the bank 's lending
decision, with respect to the $151,739.50 so-
called "nominee" loan charged in Count Ten of
the Indictment?

2. Whether a bank "insider " who acknowledged
receiving tangible economic benefits from a
$750,000 "nominee " bank loan made to his
business associate, committed bank fraud,
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§1344 and 2, as
a matter of law, in a case where: (a) 12 C.F.R.
§215. 3(f)(2) provided an express exception to
Regulation O's $100,000 cap 1 on loans to the
"insider, " who timely and properly invoked his
right to the §215.3(f)(2) exception as an
affirmative defense to the bank fraud charges in
Counts Nine and Ten of the Indictment; (b) the
borrower timely disclosed the "insider 's"
financial interest in the $750,000 loan (charged
in Count Nine of the Indictment) to the bank 's
lending officer, who was also a bank director; (c)
no language in §215.3(f)(2) imposed a duty upon
the "insider " to disclose his receipt of tangible
benefits from the loan; (d) the borrower remitted
a portion of the loan proceeds to the "insider " as
his capital contribution in a bona fide business
transaction in which the borrower acquired
property, goods, or services from the "insider "
prior to the loan transaction; (e) the bank 's
lending decision was based solely on the
creditworthiness of the borrower; (f) the "insider "
did not guarantee the loans; (g) the borrower
bore the sole responsibility for repayment of the
loans, with his assets (including his house)
pledged as collateral; (h) the bank viewed the
, $750,000 loan as "good, " the bank profited from
the loans, and the loans did not jeopardize in any
way the security and safety of the bank; and (i)
there was no evidence that the "insider "
provided any false information concerning the
loans, or asked the borrower to provide false
information to the bank, or participated in any
discussion with bank loan officers and directors
regarding their decision to make the loans, or
voted to approve or ratify the loans?

3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred, as a matter
of law, in sustaining a conviction for wire fraud
conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §1

Whether a bank insider committed bank fraud