The eight defendants in this case were convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 and of a varying number of bank fraud counts under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344 and Sec. 2 following a jury trial in the district court. They now challenge their convictions and sentences on a wide variety of grounds. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm all of the convictions except for the bank fraud convictions on Counts 24 and 25 against defendant John Ward and the bank fraud convictions on Counts 23 through 26 against defendant Owen Landman, which we reverse.

This case involves an alleged scheme to obtain loan financing from a federally insured bank by fraudulently representing the existence of down payments required by the bank from the investors on whose behalf the loans were made. According to the record in this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, United States v. Van Helden, 920 F.2d 99, 101 (1st Cir.1990), the facts of this scheme are as follows.

On January 1, 1985, defendant Peter Brandon and two others formed a partnership called Dean Street Development ("Dean Street")1 for the purpose of buying, developing, and selling real estate. Specifically, Brandon planned to buy and renovate motels along the Rhode Island seashore, convert them into condominiums and then sell the individual rooms to investors as condominium units. As part of this plan, the condominium buyers would lease the units back to Dean Street and Dean Street would then manage the properties as motels. Under the "lease-back" agreement with the buyers, Dean Street would apply the income from the operation of the motels to cover the monthly mortgage, tax and insurance costs incurred by the unit buyers. Any shortfalls in operating costs would be made up by Dean Street, leaving the buyers with no monthly costs on their investment.

In addition, buyers would be allowed to use their units for two weeks out of the year. Dean Street would also guaranty them a certain level of profit at sale. Some buyers would receive rebates for each unit they purchased. In short, the buyers would be offered a sweet deal.

To make the deal even sweeter, Brandon planned to arrange all the financing for the buyers. He hoped to obtain 100% financing, that is, loans for the complete purchase price of each unit. With such financing, buyers could invest in the project without putting any money down and consequently obtain that elusive--yet apparently not uncommon for the fast-paced world of 1980s real estate--deal of "something for nothing."

In early 1987, Brandon approached Homeowner's Funding Corporation ("Homeowners"), a mortgage broker that acts as an intermediary between banks and borrowers, to obtain these "end loans" for the buyers. Homeowners' President told Brandon that 100% financing was unavailable for the project. Rather, the best Brandon could hope to find was 80% financing with a 20% down payment required from the buyers. Homeowners subsequently searched for a lender and, after approaching several banks, located Bay Loan and Investment Bank ("Bay Loan"), a financial institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Bay Loan agreed to lend buyers of Dean Street's condominium units up to 80% of the required purchase price.

Homeowners, as well as East-West Financial Corporation ("East West"), the other mortgage broker involved in this case,2 acted as brokers and servicing agents for Bay Loan. Bay Loan was the actual lender for the Dean Street project and it financed every condominium sale involved in the scheme. By prior agreement, Homeowners and East West provided the original mortgages for the buyers and then sold them to Bay Loan. Homeowners and East West would forward all the loan applications to Bay Loan for approval prior to providing the mortgages for the condominium units.3 The decision of whether to fund a particular mortgage rested entirely with Bay Loan and Bay Loan set the terms and conditions of each mortgage.

As Bay Loan Vice President of consumer lending, Joseph Gormley, explained to Brandon, the bank required each buyer of a condominium unit to make at least a 20% down payment to the seller, Dean Street, before Bay Loan could fund the loans. Instead of instructing buyers to provide the required down payments, however, Brandon concocted a scheme that permitted buyers to avoid the down payments altogether. As a result, he was able to pursue his original goal of obtaining 100% financing for the condominium project. The scheme was formulated during the spring and summer of 1987 when Brandon had several discussions with, among other people, his attorney, George Marderosian, and co-defendant Norman Reisch, another of Marderosian's clients, concerning ways that the 20% down payment requirement "might be satisfied by alternative methods or might be avoided." During that period, Brandon also told another person involved in the conspiracy, Claude Limoges, that the down payments would be falsified.

Brandon planned and employed three basic methods of falsifying the down payments. The first method was simply providing money to the various buyers which the buyers would then use to make the down payments to Dean Street. Usually the money came from third-party investors to whom Brandon promised a commission for each down payment they funded. Once the buyer made the down payment to Dean Street, Dean Street would return the money to the investor leaving a paper trail for a down payment that was never actually made. The second method involved obtaining down payment checks from the buyers and promising not to cash them. Copies of these nonnegotiated checks would remain in the loan file to give the appearance that real funds had actually been transferred. The third method was to provide second mortgages to the buyers to fund their down payments and then to discharge those mortgages after the closings.4

The first method of avoiding down payments was employed from the outset of the scheme. Co-defendants Charles Gauvin and Marvin Granoff, two clients of Marderosian, agreed with Brandon to purchase some units at the Charlestown Motor Inn. Gauvin and Granoff also agreed to provide down payment funds to other buyers for subsequent unit sales. Brandon promised them $1000 for each unit sold with their down payment funds. In August of 1987, Gauvin, Granoff and a third person each purchased four units. Marderosian conducted the closing and co-defendant Owen Landman, an attorney who shared office space with Marderosian, acted as escrow agent. During the closing, Marderosian recorded the amount of each down payment ($20,500) on the closing statements--also called the HUD settlement sheets--as "amounts paid by or in behalf of borrower."5

Gauvin provided the down payment funds for these twelve purchases but no actual payment was ever made; instead, the funds were passed through Dean Street and returned to Gauvin. At the closing, Gauvin delivered twelve separate checks for $20,500 each to Marderosian, drawn on an account that only had a $6000 balance at the time, and Landman deposited the checks in his escrow account. Landman then wrote twelve corresponding checks to Marderosian who in turn wrote checks to Dean Street for identical amounts of $20,500 each. Two days later, Dean Street wrote twelve checks back to Gauvin for the same amounts of $20,500 each and Gauvin deposited the money in the original checking account to cover his initial twelve checks written as down payments to the seller.

In late August and September of 1987, Gauvin provided down payments for the purchase of units at the Charlestown Motor Inn and at the Bayside Motel by Reisch and others. As with the first purchases, Dean Street returned the down payment money within a matter of days and also paid Gauvin an additional $1000 per unit.

In the beginning of 1988, Bay Loan began requiring that down payments be made with certified funds. Gauvin and Granoff agreed to provide buyers with funds so that they could obtain certified checks before the closings. In January and February of 1988, Granoff supplied $470,000 to Marderosian who deposited the funds and began distributing the money to prospective buyers. The original intention was that Dean Street would pay back the money to Granoff a few days after each closing as it had done in the previous transactions. Brandon, however, never returned the money as planned.6

With no more money coming from Gauvin and Granoff, Brandon discussed the possibility of funding buyer down payments with Reisch. Reisch had earlier supplied down payment money for a buyer and was reimbursed by Dean Street the next day. Reisch agreed to provide the money, but only if he could wire the money directly to the buyers on a transaction by transaction basis in order to avoid having large amounts outstanding. Funds were wired to buyers on several occasions and the buyers then wrote down payment checks with the money. The checks were either deposited in Landman's escrow account or endorsed directly back over to Reisch. Those funds deposited in escrow were promptly returned to Reisch.

The second method of falsifying down payments, using nonnegotiated checks, was employed less frequently. In October of 1987, co-defendants Ronald Hagopian and John Ward purchased several units at the Bayside Motel using nonnegotiated checks for their down payments. Brandon also enlisted Hagopian and Ward, both real estate brokers, to solicit other buyers for the project. Hagopian and Ward told several of the buyers they had recruited to provide down payment checks which they promised would never be cashed. These buyers proceeded to write checks to Dean Street and those checks were never negotiated.

The third method of falsifying down payments was through dischargeable mortgages. Joseph Gormley at Bay Loan approved a plan for buyers to make only 5% down payments in certified funds with the balance of a required 25% down payment to be satisfied by a second mortgage provided by Dean Street. Dean Street began providing these mortgages to the buyers, but the mortgages were promptly discharged7 after the closings because Dean Street never actually intended to obligate the buyers. The discharges were accomplished by a "purchase price adjustment" given to buyers after the sale to "compensate" them for promised renovations that Dean Street was suddenly unable to make. In reality, the renovations "were never going to happen" in the first place.

At the closings, some of the buyers inquired about the second mortgage documents because Brandon had promised a discharge and the buyers wanted to know when that would take place. The "purchase price adjustment" letters that discharged the mortgages were excluded from the closing documentation so the bank would not see them. During the closings, Landman gestured to several buyers that they should not mention the matter to him. Brandon's assistant at Dean Street, co-defendant Momi Kumalae, did speak to buyers about the discharges and assured them that they would be taken care of. Kumalae also signed many of the discharge letters sent to the buyers.

Despite the sale of almost 200 units, by the fall of 1988, the loan proceeds from Bay Loan's financing of unit purchases was falling well short of Dean Street's expenses and its own debt service. Dean Street quickly fell behind schedule in making the mortgage payments on all the Bay Loan condominium unit loans, and it eventually stopped making any payments by early 1989.

Between August 1987 and October 1988, Dean Street had sold 196 units to 79 different buyers, all financed by Bay Loan in 176 separate loans. The face value of the loans was $18.8 million and Bay Loan actually distributed $17.3 million to Marderosian who passed on about $16.9 million to Dean Street (the balance was retained as fees or was paid to Landman for escrow services). As of the trial, approximately $16.3 million remained outstanding on the loans.

Gormley at Bay Loan, who approved the loans, did not know that down payment funds came from sources other than the buyers, that some down payments were nonnegotiated checks, that second mortgages were being discharged, or that buyers were being paid to purchase units. Gormley testified that he would not have approved the loans if he had been aware of any of these circumstances.

On February 28, 1991, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Rhode Island handed down a 27-count indictment charging the eight appellants and four others with defrauding Bay Loan, a federally insured financial institution, of approximately $18 million. Count 1 charged all twelve defendants with conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371. Counts 2 through 27 charged various defendants with individual acts of bank fraud, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344, based on individual loan transactions executed during the scheme to defraud.8 Four of the defendants pleaded guilty and did not go to trial. Two of the four, George Marderosian and Claude Limoges, testified for the government.

After a trial in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the jury found all the defendants guilty of conspiracy and each defendant guilty on multiple counts of bank fraud. Some defendants were acquitted on individual bank fraud charges as discussed below. This appeal followed.

II. FAILURE OF THE INDICTMENT TO STATE AN OFFENSE

Defendants first argue that the indictment failed to state an offense with respect to the conspiracy count because it did not allege that the United States or one of its agencies was the target of the conspiracy. Count I of the indictment charged defendants with conspiring to commit an offense against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 by executing a scheme to defraud Bay Loan under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344. Section 371 makes it a crime to "conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof " (emphasis added). The Supreme Court held in Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128-132, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 2751-54, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987), that in order to establish a conspiracy to "defraud the United States," under the second clause of Sec. 371, the government must prove that the target of the fraud was the United States or one of its agencies. Id. (finding a recipient of federal financial assistance and supervision not to be an agency of the United States for purposes of Sec. 371). The defendants contend that this requirement should be extended to the first clause of Sec. 371 for alleged conspiracies "to commit any offense against the United States."

18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 creates two distinct criminal offenses: conspiracies to commit offenses against the United States and conspiracies to defraud the United States. See, e.g., United States v. Haga, 821 F.2d 1036, 1039 (5th Cir.1987). The "any offense" clause of Sec. 371 ("to commit offenses against the United States") is aimed at conspiracies to violate the laws of the United States. It does not refer to a particular victim of a particular crime like the second clause does, but instead applies generally to federal "offenses." The Tanner requirement should not be extended to a large area of criminal conspiracies, such as mail and wire fraud, that victimize persons other than the government or its agencies but traditionally have been prosecuted under the "any offense" clause of Sec. 371. See United States v. Falcone, 960 F.2d 988, 990 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 292, 121 L.Ed.2d 216 (1992) (citing the reasoning in United States v. Falcone, 934 F.2d 1528, 1548-51 (11th Cir.1991) (Tjoflat, C.J., specially concurring, joined by Powell, Assoc. Justice, and Kravitch, J.) to overrule its previous extension of Tanner to the "any offense" clause of Sec. 371 in United States v. Hope, 861 F.2d 1574 (11th Cir.1988)); United States v. Loney, 959 F.2d 1332, 1338-40 (5th Cir.1992); United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 321 (6th Cir.1989). We therefore reject the contention that the indictment must assert that the United States or one of its agencies was a target of the alleged conspiracy in this case.

Defendants challenge the validity of the indictment for charging twenty-five individual counts of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344, when, allegedly, all the counts relate to the single execution of one scheme to defraud Bay Loan. An indictment is multiplicitous and in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause if it charges a single offense in more than one count. United States v. Serino, 835 F.2d 924, 930 (1st Cir.1987). Under the bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344, each execution of a scheme to defraud constitutes a separate indictable offense. United States v. George, 986 F.2d 1176, 1179 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 269, 126 L.Ed.2d 220 (1993); United States v. Lemons, 941 F.2d 309, 317 (5th Cir.1991). The central question for determining multiplicity is "whether a jury could plausibly find that the actions described in the [disputed] counts of the indictment, objectively viewed, constituted separate executions of the [bank fraud] scheme." United States v. Lilly, 983 F.2d 300, 303 (1st Cir.1992).

A number of factors are relevant in determining whether a single or multiple executions of bank fraud have taken place, including the number of banks, the number of transactions, and the number of movements of money involved in the scheme. Lilly, 983 F.2d at 305. Each time an identifiable sum of money is obtained by a specific fraudulent transaction, there is likely to be a separate execution of the scheme to defraud. See, e.g., United States v. Barnhart, 979 F.2d 647, 650-51 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1436-38 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Poliak, 823 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1029, 108 S.Ct. 1586, 99 L.Ed.2d 901 (1988).

The government's position is that each transaction in which Bay Loan provided a mortgage (or end loan) to a buyer on the basis of a fraudulent representation of a down payment constitutes a single, independent execution of the scheme to defraud. We think that this position is the correct one when the scheme is viewed properly from an objective standpoint. See Lilly, 983 F.2d at 303 (finding that the scheme should be "objectively viewed" to determine multiplicity).

The basic scheme to defraud Bay Loan involved the fraudulent representation of buyers' down payments in order to obtain loan financing from the bank for Dean Street's condominium units. The scheme was not designed to get a set amount, or a preconceived sum, of money. Instead, the scheme functioned by obtaining as many loans as possible depending on the number of buyers Dean Street could recruit to apply for the mortgages. The structure of the scheme was such that individual buyers would be brought in to submit separate loan applications which would be fraudulently prepared and then sent on to Bay Loan for approval and the disbursement of the funds for that individual sale. Bay Loan approved each loan separately based on each individual application and each loan corresponded to an individual piece of property, that is, a separate condominium unit. Objectively viewed, each loan application appears to be a repeated execution of the basic scheme and not simply an additional step or stage of one unitary transaction. Although only one bank was involved in the scheme, there were over 176 separate loans to 79 different buyers involving many separate movements of money from Bay Loan to the mortgage brokers and from the mortgage brokers to Dean Street during the fifteen months in which the scheme was in operation.

The fact that the end loans were sometimes processed in bulk does not alter the essential nature of the scheme. Defendants highlight the fact that, on some occasions, groups of mortgage applications were supplied to Bay Loan together and Bay Loan sometimes wired money to the brokers on a bulk basis. This was usually done, however, as a matter of convenience (such as when several unit purchases closed at the same time) and not as a method to package the financing in a way necessary to accomplish a unified scheme.9 Arguably, one could view this case as a single execution by Dean Street of a broad scheme to use various buyers as fronts in order to get financing for a unitary motel condominium project. However, we feel it makes more sense to look at each mortgage application as an individual attempt to fraudulently obtain distinct amounts of money from Bay Loan.

This is not, as defendants assert, a situation like the one in Lilly where a group of fraudulent mortgages was assigned in a single package of documents to the defrauded bank as security for one sum of money used to buy a single apartment complex. See id. at 302-305. In that case, there was one transaction with the defrauded bank which was executed "in order to obtain a single loan, the proceeds of which funded a single real estate purchase." Id. at 303. Consequently, we found the charges based on each mortgage to be multiplicitous. The present case is more akin to a check kiting scheme which we characterized in Lilly as involving multiple executions of a fraudulent scheme because more than one bank was involved and because, "[m]ore importantly, each check signifies a separate transaction requiring a separate issuance of money or credit on the part of the victimized bank." Id. at 304.

Similarly, the other cases cited by defendants that invalidate indictments on grounds of multiplicity involve single loan transactions instead of the multiple and separate loans fraudulently obtained in this case. See United States v. Saks, 964 F.2d 1514, 1526 (5th Cir.1992) (single loan transaction for single piece of property); United States v. Heath, 970 F.2d 1397, 1401-02 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1643, 123 L.Ed.2d 265 (1993) (two loans involved in the case "were integrally related; one could not have succeeded without the other" and both were used to accomplish essentially one integrated real estate transaction); Lemons, 941 F.2d at 316-18 (separate payments of loan proceeds to defendant were installments from a single loan transaction involving a single project). We hold, therefore, that each end loan provided by Bay Loan was the result of a separate fraud upon the bank which the indictment properly charged as an individual bank fraud offense.

Seven of the eight defendants argue that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support their convictions for bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud.10 They argue, with individual variations, that they did not have the requisite knowledge and intent to defraud Bay Loan because they did not know of, or intend to violate, any down payment requirements of the bank. With the few exceptions previously noted, we disagree. Before reviewing the evidence with respect to each defendant, we must first address some issues regarding the substantive offenses charged in this case.

To prove bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344,11 the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) engaged in a scheme or artifice to defraud, or made false statements or misrepresentations to obtain money from; (2) a federally insured financial institution; and (3) did so knowingly. United States v. Goldblatt, 813 F.2d 619, 623-24 (3rd Cir.1987); United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 850 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002, 110 S.Ct. 561, 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989). The terms "scheme" and "artifice" are defined to include "any plan, pattern or cause of action, including false and fraudulent pretenses and misrepresentations, intended to deceive others in order to obtain something of value, such as money, from the institution to be deceived." Goldblatt, 813 F.2d at 624 (citing United States v. Toney, 598 F.2d 1349, 1357 n. 12 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1033, 100 S.Ct. 706, 62 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980)). "The term 'scheme to defraud,' however, is not capable of precise definition. Fraud instead is measured in a particular case by determining whether the scheme demonstrated a departure from fundamental honesty, moral uprightness, or fair play and candid dealings in the general life of the community." Goldblatt, 813 F.2d at 624; see also United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 694 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1982, 118 L.Ed.2d 580 (1992).

The alleged scheme in this case is the fraudulent representation of down payments that were not actually paid in order to obtain loan financing from Bay Loan. There is little doubt that this scheme took place.12 Defendants argue, however, that they did not know of, or participate in, the scheme, and, to the extent that they did participate in activities related to the scheme, such actions were not illegal because the actions were not intended to deceive or defraud Bay Loan. Defendants claim they were either unaware that Bay Loan existed or else unaware that Bay Loan had a down payment requirement that prohibited the various down payment transactions in which they were involved. The central issue on appeal, therefore, is whether defendants possessed the requisite knowledge and intent.

"To act with the 'intent to defraud' means to act willfully, and with the specific intent to deceive or cheat for the purpose of either causing some financial loss to another, or bringing about some financial gain to oneself." Cloud, 872 F.2d at 852 n. 6 (citations omitted) (finding intent to defraud where defendant signed instructions "knowing that the bank could be deceived by materially false statements that appeared on the face of the instructions"); see also United States v. Saks, 964 F.2d 1514, 1518 (5th Cir.1992). "It is a well-established principle that fraudulent intent may be established by circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from all the evidence." Cloud, 872 F.2d at 852 n. 6 (citations omitted); United States v. Celesia, 945 F.2d 756, 759-60 (4th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1442 (9th Cir.1990) ("Specific intent is established by 'the existence of a scheme which was reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension, and this intention is shown by examining the scheme itself.' " (quoting United States v. Green, 745 F.2d 1205, 1207 (9th Cir.1984) (additional internal quotation omitted))).

Defendants argue that the government must prove that they knew that the victim of their fraud was a federally insured financial institution. We disagree. The status of the victim-institution is not a separate knowledge element of bank fraud under Sec. 1344 but an objective fact that must be established in order for the statute to apply. The government produced evidence, and defendants do not dispute, that Bay Loan is federally insured. This is sufficient to satisfy the requirement under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344 that the defrauded bank be a federally insured bank. See United States v. McClelland, 868 F.2d 704, 709-11 (5th Cir.1989); cf. United States v. Thompson, 811 F.2d 841, 844 (5th Cir.1987) (finding that under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1014, which criminalizes the making of false statements to a bank, the federal insured status of the victim institution is just a jurisdictional requirement and not a knowledge element of the offense); United States v. Trice, 823 F.2d 80, 86-87 (5th Cir.1987) (same).13

We decline to adopt defendants' analogy to one of the federal gambling statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1084(a), which we have previously held requires knowledge of the interstate nature of the wire communication involved in the offense. United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d 1, 24-25 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 823, 104 S.Ct. 89, 78 L.Ed.2d 97 (1983). Our holding in that case rested on the fact that the word "knowingly" in the statute could not reasonably refer to anything else except the interstate nature of the communication. Id. at 24 (noting one cannot unwittingly or unknowingly make a wire transmission). That is not the case with the bank fraud statute because "knowingly" in Sec. 1344 clearly applies to the execution of a scheme or artifice to defraud. The word "knowingly" is necessary because one can execute a scheme without knowing or understanding that it is fraudulent. In fact, that is what many of the defendants themselves argue in this appeal: that they may have facilitated the false down payments but they did not know it violated the bank's requirements. Therefore, "knowingly" in Sec. 1344 has independent meaning without reference to the federally insured status of the financial institution.

The defendants in this case also argue that the government must prove they knew that the end loans were provided by Bay Loan and not by some other institution, such as Homeowners or East West. In other words, there was no violation of Sec. 1344 because the scheme to defraud was not knowingly targeted at a federally insured financial institution, but instead at the non-federally insured mortgage brokers.

Defendants overstate the government's burden. The specific intent under Sec. 1344 is an intent to defraud a bank, that is, an intent to victimize a bank by means of a fraudulent scheme. See United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 694 (2d Cir.1992); United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1442 (9th Cir.1990). It has been established that the government does not have to show the alleged scheme was directed solely toward a particular institution; it is sufficient to show that defendant knowingly executed a fraudulent scheme that exposed a federally insured bank to a risk of loss. See, e.g., United States v. Barakett, 994 F.2d 1107, 1110-11 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 701, 126 L.Ed.2d 668 (1994) (fraudulent scheme directed at checking account customers of bank but fraud victimized bank as well); United States v. Morgenstern, 933 F.2d 1108, 1114 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1188, 117 L.Ed.2d 430 (1992) (direct object of the fraud was to steal money from third parties with deposits at the defrauded bank).

We hold that it is also unnecessary for the government to prove that a defendant knows which particular bank will be victimized by his fraud as long as it is established that a defendant knows that a financial institution will be defrauded.14 The bank fraud statute was "designed to provide an effective vehicle for the prosecution of frauds in which the victims are financial institutions that are federally created, controlled or insured." S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 377 (1983), 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3182, 3517. In creating the statute, Congress noted that "there is a strong Federal interest in protecting the financial integrity of these institutions, and the legislation in this part would assure a basis for Federal prosecution of those who victimize these banks through fraudulent schemes." Id. Thus, Congress intended to criminalize bank frauds that harm federally insured banks, not just bank frauds directed specifically toward federally insured banks. As other courts have noted, "the legislative history supports a broad construction of the statutory language" of the bank fraud statute. Mason, 902 F.2d at 1442; see also Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d at 694.

Defendants are essentially seeking to sanitize their fraud by interposing an intermediary or an additional victim between their fraud and the federally insured bank. We reject this attempt to escape the reach of the bank fraud statute. Instead, we find that defendants need not have had the specific intent to defraud Bay Loan so long as they intended to defraud some financial institution. The fact that it should turn out that the financial institution actually defrauded was federally insured is a fortuitous stroke of bad luck for the defendants but does not make it any less of a federal crime. In this case, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants fraudulently evaded a known down payment requirement, whether thought to be imposed by Homeowners, East West, Bay Loan or some other financing entity, is sufficient to support a bank fraud conviction. Of course, the government must also establish that a federally insured bank, Bay Loan, was victimized or exposed to a risk of loss by the scheme to defraud. See United States v. Blackmon, 839 F.2d 900, 906 (2d Cir.1988). This, however, is not seriously disputed in this case.15

Concerns about extending the reach of the bank fraud statute into broad new areas of financial activity stem from a misunderstanding of the nature of the statute. Financial transactions are becoming increasingly integrated and complex as more and more financial instruments are securitized and traded on national and global markets. Consequently, the effects of fraudulent actions against one institution are increasingly likely to spill over and detrimentally affect others. As Congress' main concern in Sec. 1344 was to provide jurisdiction for fraudulent schemes that harmed federally chartered or insured institutions, the increased risks to the institutions should be matched by increased coverage of the statute. We are not federalizing criminal transactions previously covered only by state law so much as recognizing that those criminal transactions are becoming more federal in nature.16

An additional argument defendants make is that the government must prove defendants knew that Bay Loan's down payment requirement specifically prohibited the funding of buyers' down payments by someone other than the buyer. Defendants claim that they thought the funding of buyer down payments was just some complex financial arrangement, "supplemental financing" or required paperwork, and they did not know the funding was designed to defraud the bank.

This misrepresents the nature of the fraud. Although Bay Loan did in fact prohibit third party funding of down payments, the key misrepresentation in this case was that the required down payments were being paid when they actually were not. Bay Loan required the buyers to make down payments to the seller, Dean Street, and the existence of the payments was represented to the bank on the closing settlement sheets. In reality, the payments were not being made, either because no funds were actually transferred or because the funds were returned by Dean Street to their source.17 Therefore, the government need only prove that defendants knew a down payment was required and that no real down payments were actually made. It need not establish that defendants knew all of the specifics of the down payment requirement such as restrictions on third party funding.

In sum, to prove defendants knowingly engaged in the fraud, the government must establish that each defendant knew that some financial institution was lending the money for the motel-condominium project, knew that a down payment was required for these loans, knew that a scheme of one sort or another existed to make it appear that the down payments were being made when in fact they were not, and finally, that each defendant willfully participated in that scheme.

Each defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence of his or her knowledge of the conspiracy to defraud Bay Loan and his or her level of participation in that agreed upon scheme. To prove conspiracy, the government must show the existence of an agreement between defendant and another to commit a crime,18 that each defendant knew of the agreement, and that each defendant voluntarily participated in the conspiracy through conduct that was interdependent with the actions of the other conspirators. United States v. Gomez-Pabon, 911 F.2d 847, 852-53 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1074, 111 S.Ct. 801, 112 L.Ed.2d 862 (1991); United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 668 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1288, 122 L.Ed.2d 680 (1993). The defendants must have both the intent to agree to participate in the conspiracy and an intent to commit the underlying substantive offense. Gomez-Pabon, 911 F.2d at 853; United States v. Drougas, 748 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir.1984). The government, however, need not prove that each defendant knew all of the details and members, or participated in all of the objectives, of the conspiracy as long as it can show knowledge of the basic agreement. Gomez-Pabon, 911 F.2d at 853; United States v. Marsh, 747 F.2d 7, 13 (1st Cir.1984). Such proof of knowledge and intent "may consist of circumstantial evidence, including inferences from surrounding circumstances, such as acts committed by the defendant that furthered the conspiracy's purposes." Gomez-Pabon, 911 F.2d at 853.

The government must also establish defendants' participation in the conspiracy with the intent to further the aims of the conspiracy. Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 712, 63 S.Ct. 1265, 1269, 87 L.Ed. 1674 (1943). Once a conspiracy is established, as well as defendant's intent to further it, any connection between the defendant and the conspiracy, even a slight one, will be sufficient to establish knowing participation. Marsh, 747 F.2d at 13.

In this case, the government must prove that the defendants knew there was an agreement to fraudulently represent down payments in order to get loans from Bay Loan and that they willfully participated in this scheme by taking some overt action with the intent to further the scheme's objective. Thus, the evidence must be sufficient to establish the intent to commit bank fraud as discussed above and, in addition, must also establish an intent to commit the fraud in conjunction with the broader conspiratorial agreement.

Our task on review of the verdicts is to examine the evidence in its entirety in the light most favorable to the government to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The government receives the benefit of all legitimate and favorable inferences, and it can prove its case by circumstantial evidence without having to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. United States v. McLaughlin, 957 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir.1992); United States v. Boldt, 929 F.2d 35, 39 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Van Helden, 920 F.2d 99, 101 (1st Cir.1990). Below, we review each defendant's case individually.

Granoff was convicted of conspiracy and two counts of bank fraud in connection with his purchase of units on one occasion and with his funding of buyer down payments on another occasion. Granoff argues that the evidence in this case is insufficient to show that he was anything more than an innocent investor duped by his lawyer, Marderosian, into providing money for a project he really did not know anything about. Although the evidence against Marvin Granoff reveals a more circumscribed role than some of the other defendants, we are not prepared to overturn the jury's guilty verdict on either the conspiracy charge or on the two counts of bank fraud.

Sufficient evidence supports the jury's conclusion that Granoff knew Bay Loan was funding Dean Street's condominium project, that he knew down payments were required from the buyers and that he knowingly participated in a scheme to deceive the bank into thinking the requirement was satisfied. To begin with, Granoff bought four units on one occasion and provided down payment funds on another occasion. Both times Bay Loan financed the purchases without knowing the required down payments were not actually made. Prior to each of these transactions, Granoff attended a series of meetings with Brandon concerning the motel condominium scheme. Brandon told Granoff that down payments were required and that he needed Granoff to provide money for the down payments of other buyers.19 Granoff agreed to do so.20

For Granoff 's purchase of units at the Charlestown Inn in August of 1987, his partner, Gauvin, provided down payments to Dean Street on Granoff 's behalf in the form of checks that were not backed by sufficient funds. Copies of the checks were included in the closing files. The "payments" were returned to Gauvin two days later when Dean Street wrote identical checks back to Gauvin which Gauvin deposited in his account to cover the original down payment checks. The fact that Gauvin's checks, totalling $246,000, were drawn on an account with only $6000 at the time when they were written indicates that there was no intent on Gauvin's part to make an actual down payment in the first place.21

Granoff likewise provided down payment funds for other buyers and the evidence indicates he did this knowing and expecting that the money would be returned to him after the closing. Granoff provided $470,000 for down payments on the Atlantic Inn-Westerly units in the form of two checks, one for $270,000 from Marvin Granoff Real Estate and another for $200,000 from Granoff's Eastern Wire Products Co. In turn, Brandon promised to pay Granoff $1000 for each unit sold using Granoff's down payment money.

As it turns out, Granoff was never paid back, but the evidence shows that Granoff expected and intended for this money to be promptly returned to him after the closings. A recycling arrangement had been used earlier for Granoff 's own purchase, and for subsequent purchases funded by Gauvin, under the initial agreement between Granoff, Gauvin, and Brandon. More importantly, about two weeks after the first closings involving Granoff's $470,000, Gauvin sent a letter to Marderosian, on Manchester Associates22 letterhead, complaining that the transaction involving the $470,000 was taking too long. The letter stated that the transaction involving Granoff's $470,000 "was to take at most two to three days." Marderosian also testified that on a different occasion, Gauvin told Marderosian that Gauvin and Granoff "can make money without putting up any money." In addition, there was no promissory note or other formal documentation to indicate that the $470,000 was normal loan financing.23 Consequently, Granoff knew that his money was used to create the appearance that down payments were being paid when in fact they were not; they were being falsified.

The arrangement of rapidly recycling "down payment" funds through Dean Street meant that, in reality, no down payments were being made at all. A paper trail was left in the closing files indicating that the buyer had made a down payment to the seller, Dean Street, when, in fact, the seller just returned the money to its source, effectively rendering that paper trail fraudulent. Bay Loan's down payment requirement was thus avoided without the bank's knowledge. As a knowing participant in this recycling scheme, Granoff possessed the necessary intent to defraud and the requisite level of involvement in the larger conspiracy to be found guilty of the offenses charged.

Although not essential for upholding Granoff's conviction, we also find that the evidence is sufficient to show that Granoff knew Bay Loan was loaning the money for the condominium units. Granoff bought four units financed by Bay Loan and he put up nearly half a million dollars to provide down payment funds for other units to be purchased with Bay Loan financing. Homeowners furnished a letter at the closings including the closing on Granoff's purchases, which Granoff attended, stating that Homeowners had "transferred all of its rights and interests" in the mortgage to Bay Loan.24 Granoff had occasion to see the letter and it is not unreasonably to assume he also read it.

Granoff also attended a number of planning meetings with Brandon in which plans for closing on various units, the funding of down payments, and other details of the scheme were discussed. The evidence also indicates Granoff was continually kept abreast of various details of Brandon's scheme; details, one could infer, that included the source of the financing. In the last half of 1987, Granoff and Gauvin formed a partnership called Manchester Associates for the purpose of real estate investment. On behalf of Manchester Associates, Gauvin met several times with Brandon who discussed his overall plans to close on over 400 motel units as well as the schedule for those closings. Letters referencing these meetings were written on Manchester letterhead and one could reasonably infer that Gauvin related the substance of the meetings to his partner Granoff.25 One such letter from Gauvin states that "it would seem that the lending institutions will be in a position to begin closing." As Homeowners and Bay Loan were the only institutions involved at the time the letter was written, the plural reference to "institutions " indicates that Gauvin and his partner, Granoff, were aware not only of Homeowners but of Bay Loan as well.

In sum, the evidence indicates that Granoff was aware, on a fairly detailed level, of a large real estate scheme whose only source of funding happened to be Bay Loan. With substantial sums of his own money at stake in this extensive project, Granoff was likely to become aware at some point of the source of money behind it all. It is not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that Granoff knew of Bay Loan's involvement in the project.

Furthermore, the fact that Bay Loan was providing the financing was known to several others who, like Granoff, were involved in buying and investing in the units. Brandon testified that he was "completely open" about, and "made no secret" of, Bay Loan's involvement. Although Brandon testified that he generally told people outside Dean Street that the lender was Homeowners and not Bay Loan, he also testified that he told Hagopian, Ward, Reisch, and Limoges about Bay Loan's involvement. These people, like Granoff, bought units or provided down payment funds and were not Dean Street employees. Even an investor named Michael Parvin, who bought only one unit, testified that he knew Bay Loan was involved. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for a jury to conclude that Granoff discovered this fact as well.

Granoff challenges any inferences of criminal knowledge or intent drawn from the pool of circumstantial evidence as impermissibly based merely on Granoff's association with his co-defendants. He claims that amidst the fast-paced wheeling and dealing of the 1980s real estate market, investors did not have the ability to know all the details and purposes behind every one of their transactions. It was common for investors to entrust their money to developers and lawyers without learning any of the specifics of the various projects in which they were involved. Details such as the exact nature of a bank's down payment requirement were not, Granoff implies, important enough to be discussed between a developer and an investor. Add to these circumstances the unscrupulous and deceptive acts of Brandon and Marderosian, who allegedly got Granoff into this whole mess, and Granoff contends that we cannot help but conclude he was lied to about the true nature of the project.

While it may be true that the typical real estate investor in the 1980s would readily put up hundreds of thousands of dollars for "down payment funds," expect the money back in a few days, and still not suspect he is defrauding a bank, we are certainly not prepared, given the facts discussed above, to preclude a jury from concluding otherwise. The government need not disprove every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, provided the record in its entirety supports the jury's verdict. United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 714 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1005, 122 L.Ed.2d 154 (1993). In this case, the record does provide the requisite support. Therefore, we affirm Granoff's convictions.

Gauvin was convicted of conspiracy and five counts of bank fraud in connection with his purchase of several units and his funding of buyer down payments. Gauvin was Granoff's business partner and the more active of the two in their dealings with Dean Street. According to the record, he knew at least as much as Granoff, and most likely more, about the scheme to defraud Bay Loan. Gauvin also participated to a greater extent in the scheme than Granoff did. Consequently, there is no need to discuss at length the evidence sufficient to support his conviction.

The jury could have found that Gauvin knew Bay Loan was providing loans for the condominium project and requiring down payments for these loans based on the evidence of the several meetings Gauvin attended and correspondence that he exchanged with Brandon discussing the condominium projects and his agreement with Brandon to provide buyers with down payment funds that were required for the financing of the units. The jury could infer that Gauvin knew the down payments were not in fact being paid in violation of the bank's requirement, and that Gauvin willfully participated in the scheme to accomplish this fraud, based on the evidence that Gauvin: (1) delivered to Dean Street twelve down payment checks backed by insufficient funds for the Charlestown closings in August of 1987 and received twelve equivalent checks back from Dean Street two days later which he used to cover his original checks; (2) provided down payment money for Reisch and others which was returned to him within a matter of days; (3) commented to Marderosian that the down payment checks he was providing "did not have to be backed by good funds because the timing was so quick" and that he and Granoff could "make money without putting up any money;" and (4) delivered Granoff's $470,000 in down payment funds to Dean Street and wrote in a subsequent letter to Brandon that he expected the transaction involving those funds "to take at most two to three days."

Gauvin argues that the evidence of his activities clearly indicates a lawful intent in his writing the checks to Dean Street. As he testified at trial, Gauvin thought he was simply lending money to Dean Street for its condominium project and he had no intention that his money be used for fraudulent purposes. Evidence in the record indicates that "supplemental financing," similar to what Gauvin thought he was providing to Dean Street, was a standard practice in the industry. Gauvin also testified that he was "surprised" to see his first twelve checks come back so quickly. But Gauvin was not so surprised, apparently, so as to be tipped off that anything illegitimate was going on because such rapid turn around of loans was also a standard practice during the real estate boom of the 1980s. Gauvin suggests that maybe Dean Street was packaging the secondary financing and selling it off at a profit, thus removing Gauvin's participation as a lender fairly quickly.

Maybe, but then again, maybe not. The jury considered Gauvin's arguments and decided that the evidence proved Gauvin knew what was really happening at Dean Street. Our job on appeal is to measure the sufficiency of that evidence and not to search for every logical or rational conclusion that can be drawn. Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 714. Gauvin was told several times that funds were needed to make down payments for buyers. We find it rather difficult, therefore, to believe Gauvin thought he was legitimately loaning money for down payments when the recipient of the payments was giving the money right back to the lender. If Gauvin loaned money to a friend to buy a car and then had his loan paid off by the car dealership, we might wonder about his characterization of the transaction as normal financing. In the present case, the suspicious nature of the transactions, combined with evidence of the underlying scheme to defraud and an agreement between Gauvin and the scheme's mastermind to contribute funds to the scheme, is more than ample to support the jury's verdict.

Reisch was convicted of conspiracy and seven counts of bank fraud. The evidence against Reisch indicates that he knew Bay Loan was financing the condominium units, that he knew down payments were required for the condominium loans and that he knowingly participated in a scheme to recycle funds through buyers to make it look like these down payments were actually being made. Reisch had "at least a dozen" discussions with Brandon and Marderosian about the 20% down payment requirement and ways that the "requirement might be satisfied by alternative methods or might be avoided," including the use of second mortgages and loaning the down payment money to the buyers.

Proof of Reisch's knowing participation in the conspiracy is as follows. Reisch bought four Charlestown units for which Gauvin provided the down payment funds. At the same time, Reisch provided another buyer with down payment money for three other units. Dean Street returned the money to Reisch the next day. Reisch later agreed with Brandon to wire money for down payments directly into buyers' accounts. After each closing that utilized Reisch's wired funds, the down payment money was returned to Reisch. On some occasions, the buyers' checks to Dean Street, which were funded by Reisch, were endorsed directly back over to Reisch. Reisch once remarked about this arrangement "we would just have to keep bringing the funds back and rolling them to wire more funds out for the projects."

As for Reisch's knowledge of Bay Loan, Brandon testified that it was "very probable" that he told Reisch about Bay Loan's involvement in the project during a conversation in the summer of 1988. The jury could reasonably conclude that Reisch had knowledge of Bay Loan even before this conversation. Reisch's contact with Brandon and his involvement in the down payment scheme was more significant than that of Granoff. Because we found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Granoff had knowledge of Bay Loan, we think that, for the reasons discussed above, there is also sufficient evidence against Reisch.

Like Gauvin and Granoff, Reisch argues that he was just making loans that he thought were completely legal. Like Gauvin and Granoff, we find this argument unconvincing, especially given Reisch's greater involvement in the scheme. We reject, moreover, Reisch's application of the holding in United States v. Falcone, 109 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir.1940) (holding the mere delivery of goods or services to a conspiracy does not constitute membership in the conspiracy), to this case. Reisch's conduct amounted to more than a mere delivery of loans to a conspiracy. The evidence indicated that Reisch was involved in the planning of the down payment scheme and that he played a key role in furthering the success of a conspiracy that was starved for new funds before he began supplying them. In particular, Reisch provided a specific loan arrangement (involving a complex system of wired funds) especially tailored to falsifying the down payments. Reisch's actions thus were not limited to the mere provision of lending services but instead were strong evidence of an intent to further the conspiracy.

Hagopian was convicted of conspiracy and six counts of bank fraud for his role as a broker for Dean Street who solicited buyers and facilitated their purchases.26 The evidence against Hagopian more than adequately establishes his knowledge of Bay Loan's down payment requirement and his knowing participation in various schemes to fraudulently represent the existence of those down payments. To begin with, Brandon testified that he told Hagopian about "his relationship" with Bay Loan, which establishes Hagopian's knowledge that Bay Loan was providing the financing. Hagopian knew a down payment was required for the units by virtue of the fact that he provided a down payment check for his own purchase, and he discussed down payments with some of the buyers he recruited.27

Hagopian also knew about and participated in the scheme to falsify the existence of the down payments. Hagopian purchased several condominium units and wrote a corresponding down payment check that Dean Street never negotiated. Hagopian told the buyers he recruited that they needed to write checks to Dean Street for the purchases of their units but that the checks would either not be used or would be covered by Dean Street itself.28 Hagopian also told some buyers that they would have second mortgages to cover part of their down payment but these mortgages would later be discharged. All of these schemes were actually executed with many of the buyers Hagopian solicited. Sometimes Hagopian returned voided or nonnegotiated down payment checks back to the buyers. Hagopian also told buyers they would be paid for each unit they bought and he usually provided this rebate money to the buyers he had solicited after the closings.

Hagopian adds a new twist to the familiar refrain that he thought he was participating in a perfectly legal real estate project. He claims that the fact he openly solicited buyers for a "no money down" investment opportunity proves that he had no knowledge that Brandon's down payment scheme defrauded the bank. Hagopian placed public advertisements for the condominiums that explicitly promised "no money down." Hagopian contends that because Dean Street took care of all the financing, his job was limited to soliciting buyers for a type of real estate investment that was allegedly common at that time and not in any way suspicious.29

The evidence clearly supports the jury's conclusion that Hagopian did more than innocently broker deals for Dean Street. Hagopian told buyers of his "no money down" investment opportunity to provide down payment checks that would not be cashed and to sign mortgages that would be discharged. His "openness" in advertising no money down investments simply shows he was actively soliciting buyers to further the scheme. The scheme relied on new faces to serve as frontmen for the individual bank loans and Hagopian's actions were an integral part of furthering the scheme's success.

Hagopian was not open about the fact that "no money down" meant providing false paperwork to the bank so that it would think down payments were actually being made. Regardless of whether 100% financing was customary at the time and thus not suspicious, the fake down payments and fake second mortgages were certainly not customary (or if customary in the 1980s, still illegal), and the jury was warranted in concluding that Hagopian knew this. Finally, the jury could reasonably infer that the public advertising was just a necessary, and minor, risk taken by Hagopian to attract new buyers and not particularly convincing evidence of his innocence.

Ward was convicted of conspiracy and six counts of bank fraud for purchasing a unit and for soliciting and facilitating unit sales.30 The evidence against Ward, at least in terms of knowledge and intent, is essentially the same as that against his partner, Hagopian, and the two played essentially the same role in the conspiracy. Brandon testified that he told Ward about "his relationship" with Bay Loan. Ward also knew that down payments were required as he was involved in many of the same discussions with potential buyers that Hagopian was involved in. Specifically, Ward told one buyer to give him a check "for the down payment that was required."

Ward knew down payments were not actually being made as his own down payment was not negotiated and he told one buyer, whose down payment funds were to be wired into that buyer's account, that the down payment check would be cashed the same day so that the people wiring the funds "got their money back."

We reject Ward's assertion that he thought Bay Loan approved all of the various down payment shenanigans in which he was involved. Ward contends that the down payment arrangement that he was aware of was simply a paperwork requirement and not a "real" requirement; that is, Ward only knew that some sort of paper representing down payments had to exist but thought no real funds were actually required from the buyers. We suppose Ward's contention is within the realm of the possible. However, the jury looked at the intricate down payment arrangements and the way Ward explained them to the buyers and found, quite reasonably we think, that Ward knew his actions were a "departure from fundamental honesty." Goldblatt, 813 F.2d at 624. The common sense understanding of a down payment is the transfer of actual funds from the buyer to the seller or financier. With this in mind, it is more than reasonable for a jury to find that once a defendant learned of the structure of the down payment arrangement used in this case, with no real down payments changing hands, the defendant would be tipped off to the fact that a fraudulent transaction was contemplated. Even if we assume Brandon lied to Ward and told him that Bay Loan directed Dean Street to arrange for paper, as opposed to real, down payments, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Ward knew he was engaging in a sham transaction.

The evidence is also sufficient to prove Ward's willful participation in the overall conspiracy and Ward's execution of the bank fraud scheme charged in Counts 9, 15, 18, and 19.31 However, the evidence is not sufficient to show that Ward took any actions that would constitute the engagement in bank fraud set forth in Counts 24 and 25 of the redacted indictment.32 Consequently we uphold the convictions on the former counts and reverse the verdict against Ward on the latter two counts.

As stated in Count 9, Ward bought a condominium unit at the Bayside Motel in October of 1987. The down payment check he provided for the sale was never negotiated. This is sufficient, given his knowledge discussed above, to support the conclusion that Ward never intended to provide real funds for the down payment but just paperwork to deceive the bank. Ward's conviction for bank fraud on Count 9 is thus upheld.

The evidence is also sufficient to support the conviction on Counts 15, 18 and 19 which each charged Ward with bank fraud for facilitating the sale of a separate condominium unit. Ward helped to solicit the buyers involved in the transactions for these counts by telling them that no down payments were required. He directed one of these buyers to provide a down payment check that would be funded by someone else and then cashed so that the funds could be returned. Ward provided the buyers in Counts 15 and 18 with the rebates they were promised for purchasing units. For the transaction in Count 19, the evidence indicates that Ward was the intermediary for the funds wired by Brandon to cover the buyer's down payment. Brandon's wire transfer was directed to the buyer's insurance company to the attention of "John Ward." Thus, we uphold Ward's convictions for conspiracy and on Counts 15, 18 and 19.

The evidence is not sufficient, however, to show that Ward engaged in bank fraud with respect to the transactions in Counts 24 and 25. Although Ward was present at the closings and several of the meetings where down payment arrangements were discussed for the sales in Counts 24 and 25, there is no evidence that Ward said anything to these particular buyers or did anything to otherwise facilitate their purchases.33 Ward did not provide the buyers in Counts 24 and 25 with rebates as an incentive to buy nor did he direct these buyers to falsify their down payments.34 As such, Ward neither executed nor aided the execution of the scheme to defraud in these two instances. Because we see no evidence in the record to support any reasonable finding by the jury that Ward played a role in obtaining the loans in Counts 24 and 25, we reverse his convictions for these two counts.

Landman was convicted of conspiracy and six counts of bank fraud in connection with his facilitation of down payment arrangements for Dean Street.35 Ample evidence exists to support the finding that Landman knew a down payment requirement existed and that he knew about the various fraudulent methods used to avoid that requirement. As in Ward's case, however, the evidence is not sufficient to show Landman participated in the execution of a scheme to defraud for four out of the six bank fraud counts.

Landman acted as an escrow agent for a number of the condominium closings and one of his main responsibilities was receiving down payments from buyers and transferring them to the seller, Dean Street. Marderosian testified that he told Landman that Gauvin and Granoff would be funding down payments for the initial purchasers and Landman should hold that down payment money. Landman knew that the down payment funds were being returned to whoever provided them as Landman himself delivered the money back to its source on several occasions.36

Landman also knew about the fraudulent second mortgages that were supposed to cover part of the down payment. He knew the buyers were signing meaningless promissory notes for second mortgages at the closings because Marderosian told him beforehand that the mortgages would be discharged. At the closings, several buyers asked Landman when the mortgages would be released as promised because the discharge letter accomplishing this was not part of the closing documents (presumably so Bay Loan would not see the letter). Landman made gestures to these buyers to indicate that they should not talk to him about it.37 All these facts, taken together, support the jury's conclusion that Landman knew that something illegal was being done to get around the down payment requirement.

We reject Landman's argument that there is insufficient evidence to prove he knew Bay Loan was the target of the scheme to defraud. To begin with, Brandon was "completely open" about Bay Loan's involvement and told a number of people involved in the scheme. Several buyers testified that they knew about Bay Loan, including one person whose only involvement was his purchase of a single unit. Landman shared office space with Brandon's point man in the scheme, Marderosian, who was intimately involved in all the details of the scheme. Finally, the closing documents included a letter indicating Bay Loan was the ultimate lender;38 Landman acted as escrow agent for many of the closings and also conducted a few of them himself.39

Sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy count and on Counts 21 and 22. Counts 21 and 22 allege bank fraud in connection with the closings of two units at the Hillside Motel. The evidence reveals that Landman returned the down payment funds provided by Reisch in connection with these transactions back to Reisch in violation of the down payment requirement.40 In addition, one Dean Street employee, Marie Lynch, testified that, in general, she would bring buyers' certified down payment checks to Landman after money was wired by Reisch to the buyers' accounts to accomplish the certification. Lynch testified that she once saw Landman write a check to Reisch for the amount of the down payment funds she had just brought to him. Lynch did not specify which transactions she was referring to in her testimony but the record does contain checks written by Landman to Reisch for the exact amount of the down payment funds wired by Reisch for the Hillside purchases referred to in Counts 21 and 22.41 We therefore find the evidence sufficient to support the convictions for bank fraud charged in Counts 21 and 22. This evidence is also sufficient to show willful participation in the conspiracy and thus supports Landman's conviction on Count 1.42

Landman argues that his actions were just a normal and proper function of his job as escrow agent. His responsibilities, he claims, were strictly limited to receiving and distributing money at Dean Street's direction. See United States v. Bruun, 809 F.2d 397, 402-03, 410 (7th Cir.1987). This "just following orders" defense cannot stand in the face of the evidence showing that Landman knew down payments were being falsified, that he agreed to safeguard Reisch's down payment funds, and that he personally falsified two down payments by returning the funds to Reisch. The evidence was sufficient to indicate that Landman's intent was to participate in transactions designed to deceive Bay Loan.

With respect to Counts 23 through 26, relating to closings at the Sandcastle Motel, no checks written by, or to, Landman that involved down payment funds were in evidence. The government stipulated that the relevant checks for these transactions were forgeries. In particular, Landman's signature on the checks for the Sandcastle transactions were forged by Marderosian.43 It is true that Landman conducted the closings for the Sandcastle units and thus in some sense facilitated the scheme to defraud,44 but that alone is not sufficient to show that Landman participated in the relevant act of fraudulently violating the down payment requirement for those individual transactions. On the contrary, it seems that Landman never saw the down payment checks as the money did not go through his escrow account. Instead, the checks were transferred directly to Reisch.

We note that Landman also conducted closings for units at the Atlantic Inn-Narragansett, but the jury acquitted Landman on the charges connected to those transactions (Counts 16 and 17) apparently because it found the act of conducting the closings was, by itself, insufficient to establish the execution of a scheme to defraud. For Counts 23 through 26, once the stipulated forgeries are removed from consideration, there is similarly little evidence to support a conviction beyond the fact that Landman conducted the closings. While the jury is not held to consistent results, we think that the acquittal on Counts 16 and 17 reinforces our judgment that (absent some confusion about the forged checks),45 there was insufficient evidence to convict on Counts 23 through 26. Because the evidence is insufficient to prove that Landman executed or aided in the execution of the schemes to defraud Bay Loan charged in Counts 23 through 26, we reverse his conviction on those counts.

Kumalae was convicted of conspiracy and three counts of bank fraud in connection with various actions she took while working as an assistant to Brandon at Dean Street.46 The evidence establishing Kumalae's knowledge of Bay Loan's down payment requirement and the scheme to fraudulently violate it is the following: (1) Brandon testified that he told Kumalae about his relationship with Bay Loan; (2) an East West employee testified that she asked Kumalae to forward information about the unit buyers so that she could satisfy the guidelines established by Bay Loan; (3) Kumalae was present during some of the conversations between Brandon, Ward, Hagopian and a buyer in which down payments were discussed; (4) Kumalae was also present at a meeting at which Brandon said "they needed to show down payments or something so they were going to wire money into the accounts or deposit it and they needed one of our checks to prove that it came out of our account"; (5) Kumalae told one buyer that she needed a check from him and that she would be "doing the transactions at the banks"; (6) Kumalae assured one buyer whose down payment check had not been negotiated that his check had not been used; and, (7) Kumalae instructed another Dean Street employee, Marie Lynch, who had asked about the discharges of the second mortgages that "there weren't supposed to be any second mortgages and to just don't worry about it. They were being taken care of."

The evidence that she willfully participated in this scheme is as follows: (1) Kumalae advised buyers of how their down payment requirement would be satisfied;47 (2) she once wired money from her own account to a buyer in order to fund his down payment;48 (3) she signed several of the mortgage discharge letters provided to the buyers;49 and, (4) she received some of the down payment checks, and because several of these checks were deposited directly into Reisch's account, presumably by Kumalae, she effected the return of down payment funds to their source in violation of the down payment requirement. All of this evidence is sufficient to support Kumalae's bank fraud and conspiracy convictions.

Kumalae attempts to rely on cases holding that a defendant's mere presence at the scene of the crime or mere association with criminals to whom all the evidence at trial pertains is insufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy. United States v. Ocampo, 964 F.2d 80 (1st Cir.1992); United States v. Mehtala, 578 F.2d 6, 10 (1st Cir.1978); United States v. Joiner, 429 F.2d 489, 493 (5th Cir.1970). Kumalae's reliance on these cases is misplaced because the government's case rested on Kumalae's own knowledge of the scheme to defraud based on her own statements to others and on a series of actions taken by Kumalae herself that directly defrauded Bay Loan. Kumalae's argument that she was just acting in good faith by performing ministerial duties for Dean Street and nothing more also fails. The record is clear that Kumalae wired down payment funds to buyers from her own account and signed mortgage discharge letters. These actions were not merely "ministerial duties."

The district court denied the motions for severance50 made by several of the defendants51 who argued that they were unfairly prejudiced by the evidentiary spillover from the case presented against their more culpable co-defendants. The defendants' claim is that the joint trial seriously limited the jury's ability to sift through all the evidence against each individual defendant and increased the risk that the jury would base its verdicts on evidence which has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of defendants with a more limited involvement in the scheme. Whatever the advisability, in general, of holding mass trials in complicated cases with many defendants of varying culpabilities, we do not find any significant degree of unfairness or prejudice in this case that would warrant a reversal of the district court's refusal to sever the trial.

The decision to grant or deny a motion for severance is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and we will reverse its refusal to sever only upon a finding of manifest abuse of discretion. United States v. Olivo-Infante, 938 F.2d 1406, 1409 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302, 308 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 986, 117 L.Ed.2d 148 (1992); United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 246 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 849, 111 S.Ct. 139, 112 L.Ed.2d 106 (1990); see also United States v. Searing, 984 F.2d 960, 965 (8th Cir.1993) ("In the context of conspiracy, severance will rarely, if ever, be required."). Defendants seeking a separate trial must make a strong showing of evident prejudice. United States v. O'Bryant, 998 F.2d 21, 25 (1st Cir.1993); United States v. Martinez, 922 F.2d 914, 922 (1st Cir.1991). This showing must demonstrate that the joint trial prevented the jury from separating the evidence against each defendant and reaching a reliable verdict. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993); O'Bryant, 998 F.2d at 25-26.

There is no indication in this case that the jury was unable to distinguish the various charges and defendants or to sort properly through the evidence relating to each defendant. The jury demonstrated its ability to independently assess the evidence when it acquitted four of the defendants on individual bank fraud counts, see United States v. Figueroa, 976 F.2d 1446, 1452 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1346, 122 L.Ed.2d 728 (1993) (finding acquittals to be a relevant factor in upholding a denial of severance); United States v. Dworken, 855 F.2d 12, 29 (1st Cir.1988) (same), and when it asked that specific portions of the transcript relating to specific defendants be read to them. In addition, the trial judge provided a number of limiting instructions throughout the trial that alleviated any potential prejudice. See Figueroa, 976 F.2d at 1452; United States v. Tejeda, 974 F.2d 210, 219 (1st Cir.1992).

The degree of prejudicial spillover appears minimal as no defendant has demonstrated which, if any, evidence presented at trial would have been inadmissible if presented against that defendant at a separate trial. The government presented sufficient evidence to show that all defendants were involved in a single interdependent conspiracy, see Section IX.B., and most of the evidence at trial was related to the development and operation of that conspiracy. "Where evidence featuring one defendant is independently admissible against a codefendant, the latter cannot convincingly complain of an improper spillover effect." O'Bryant, 998 F.2d at 26 (collecting cases). Moreover, "[e]ven where large amounts of testimony are irrelevant to one defendant, or where one defendant's involvement in an overall agreement is far less than the involvement of others, we have been reluctant to secondguess severance denials." Boylan, 898 F.2d at 246 (citations omitted). We therefore affirm the judge's decision to deny the severance motions.

On January 1, 1990, the Governor of Rhode Island ordered the closure of credit unions in that state insured by a private entity known as the Rhode Island Savings Deposit Insurance Corporation (RISDIC). After years of risky real estate investments, many credit unions were unable to weather the late 1980s crash in the real estate market and RISDIC could not cover their anticipated losses. In the process of closing the credit unions, the governor froze the assets of hundreds of thousands of angry depositors. The ensuing panic among depositors as well as the public hearings, criminal investigations, and civil lawsuits received extensive media coverage. The Rhode Island credit union crisis, although coexistent with Dean Street's downfall, is not related to the present case.

Defendants raised a series of claims related to the district court's alleged failure to shield them from the prejudicial effects of publicity surrounding the Rhode Island credit union crisis. They argue that their right to an impartial jury was jeopardized by the trial court's denial of their change of venue motion, their request for individual voir dire, their request to question the jurors about losing money in the credit union crisis, and their request for a mistrial or curative instructions after the admission of certain evidence relating to the failed credit unions. As we find no significant threat to the trial's fairness from the effects of unfavorable publicity, we uphold the district court's denial of the motions related to prejudicial publicity.

The decision to grant a change of venue52 is within the sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Rodriguez-Cardona, 924 F.2d 1148, 1158 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 54, 116 L.Ed.2d 31 (1991); United States v. Angiulo, 897 F.2d 1169, 1181 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 845, 111 S.Ct. 130, 112 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990). Change of venue is proper where the level of prejudice against a defendant precludes a fair and impartial trial because the community is saturated with inflammatory publicity about the case. Rodriguez-Cardona, 924 F.2d at 1158; Angiulo, 897 F.2d at 1181; United States v. Moreno Morales, 815 F.2d 725, 731 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 966, 108 S.Ct. 458, 98 L.Ed.2d 397 (1987).

Defendants proffered forty-four newspaper articles relating to Dean Street and their criminal case, as well as other examples from the media which purported to show negative feelings stemming from the credit union crisis against those who benefited from failed financial institutions. Defendants claim that this demonstrated widespread prejudice among potential jurors against them. They argue that the jurors would not distinguish Bay Loan from the failed credit unions and consequently the jurors would direct their hostility toward those involved in the credit union crisis against the defendants at trial.

We find that the publicity relating to this case did not particularly saturate the community with inflammatory sentiment nor do we have any reason to believe that the jury was anything but impartial. The articles presented by the defendants evidence standard factual press coverage of a criminal case and are neither inflammatory nor sensational. See Angiulo, 897 F.2d at 1181 (stating that prejudice will not be presumed in the case of merely factual reporting, instead "the publicity must be both extensive and sensational in nature"). Only five of the forty-seven prospective jurors had ever read or heard about the case and none of them sat on the jury. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the jurors' feelings about the credit crisis, if they had any, impaired their impartiality in the present case. The trial judge appropriately cautioned the jury about the need to separate the credit crisis from this case and, as discussed below, he conducted a voir dire that sufficiently investigated possible bias. The trial judge determined that the jurors would understand that the credit crisis had no connection to this case when he denied the change of venue motion and we find no abuse of discretion in this conclusion.53

Defendants argue that the denial of their request for individual voir dire and their request for jurors to be asked whether they had lost money in the credit unions jeopardized their right to an impartial jury. See Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). Defendants claim that as a result of these rulings the court did not adequately investigate possible bias against defendants stemming from the credit union crisis. See, e.g., United States v. Gillis, 942 F.2d 707 (10th Cir.1991).

The trial court has broad discretion in conducting voir dire. United States v. McCarthy, 961 F.2d 972, 976 (1st Cir.1992); Real v. Hogan, 828 F.2d 58, 62 (1st Cir.1987). "It is more than enough if the court covers the substance of the appropriate areas of concern by framing its own questions in its own words." Hogan, 828 F.2d at 62 (citations omitted). In this case, the judge adequately probed prospective jurors for possible bias related to the credit union crisis54 and specifically inquired several times whether any of the jurors or their families had "lost money in a bank fraud or anything of that sort." One juror responded affirmatively to the court's questions in this area and was excused.55 Throughout the voir dire, any juror responding to the court's queries was subjected to individual questioning by the judge and by counsel. For these reasons, we find no errors in the voir dire process.