context: The government need only prove a risk of loss to support McCauley's and Chendeka's convictions for bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 244 F.3d 398, 400-02
citation_a.parenthetical: finding no risk of loss when financial company rather than bank handled fraudulent instrument
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Odiodio, 244 F.3d 398, 400-02 (finding no risk of loss when financial company rather than bank handled fraudulent instrument).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 888 F.2d 20, 23-24
citation_b.parenthetical: affirming bank fraud conviction for fraudulent overdrafts although "plan was no more likely to succeed than a request that the Bank exchange monopoly money for its face value in U.S. currency"
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Barakett, 994 F.2d 1107, 1111 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that deposits of forged checks exposed banks to risk of loss even though they recovered the funds); United States v. Saks, 964 F.2d 1514, 1519 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that fraudulent loan transaction exposed financial institutions to risk of loss even though loan was secured); United States v. Lemons, 941 F.2d 309, 316 (5th Cir.1991) (finding risk of loss to bank from forged endorsed check even though bank suffered no harm); United States v. Church, 888 F.2d 20, 23-24 (5th Cir.1989) (affirming bank fraud conviction for fraudulent overdrafts although “plan was no more likely to succeed than a request that the Bank exchange monopoly money for its face value in U.S. currency”).