Some “white collar” crimes involve making untrue statements on official documents or to authorities. A ruling earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) addressed the difference between a “false” statement and a “misleading” one.
That ruling could have broad ramifications for other cases. Let’s take a brief look at the case and the ruling.
Former politician admits he misled regulators but didn’t make false statements
A former Chicago politician was convicted for violating a federal law that makes it an offense to make “any false statement or report” to federal regulators – in this case the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). He admitted that he misled the FDIC about several bank loans he received that totaled over a quarter million dollars by failing to report all but the first loan. The government was seeking repayment of his loans, with interest, after the bank failed back in 2017.
However, the former alderman and member of the city’s Daley political dynasty argued that his statements were not false, as specified in the law, since he didn’t report all the relevant loans.
The SCOTUS ruling
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who wrote the unanimous opinion that overruled the federal appeals court ruling, stated in part, “False and misleading are two different things. A misleading statement can be true. And a true statement is obviously not false. So basic logic dictates that at least some misleading statements are not false.”
Chief Justice Roberts noted that some laws specifically address both false and misleading statements. Therefore, the fact that the one he was accused of violating doesn’t was intentional.
The case returns to the federal appeals court to determine whether the statements were indeed false, even though the defendant claims they weren’t. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who voted with the other justices, wrote a separate opinion stating that the appeals court should affirm the trial court’s original determination that the statements were false.
Of course, it’s always best to provide both accurate and complete information when any lack of candor can have potential criminal consequences. That’s why, whether providing written or verbal testimony or sworn information, it’s smart to have experienced legal guidance to avoid unnecessary consequences.
