In Shaw, the Court held that the bank must have a legal interest in the property targeted by a §1344(1) scheme to defraud; is that interest a mixed question of law and fact for the jury or a pure question of law for the trial court?

Questions Presented The Court previously considered this case in Shaw v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 462 (2016), where it held that a scheme to defraud a financial institution under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1) must be one to deceive the bank and deprive it of something of value in which it had a legal property interest. After the Court remanded for reconsideration in light of its opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed petitioner’s § 1344(1) convictions. This petition presents the following questions: 1. In Shaw, the Court held that the bank must have a legal interest in the property targeted by a § 1344(1) scheme to defraud; is that interest a mixed question of law and fact for the jury or a pure question of law for the trial court? 2. Ifthe bank’s interest in the targeted property is a question for the jury, did the Ninth Circuit erroneously affirm petitioner’s § 1344(1) convictions given that the government did not present evidence of such an interest at his trial and the district court did not instruct the jury on that element? ii