Exemplary life lightens sentence for convicted bank president

It may be true that the purest of plans often go awry, as it seems to have been the case for a Minnesota bank president whose efforts to save a failing bank has led to a conviction for white-collar crimes. Ultimately, however, a federal district court judge gave the man a light sentence, noting he has led an “exemplary life” and is known for community service and philanthropy. He will not have to pay any fines nor make restitution.

Hired as the bank’s president after the bank had been open just three years, he brought along a banking customer who wrote checks between various business accounts at two banks, leaving a trail of back checks totaling $1.9 million. The bank president sought to use bank funds to cover the expected overdrafts from the bad checks. His plan involved the help of five straw borrowers, taking out a total of $1.9 million in loans. For this, he was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, far less than the 10-year sentence sought by prosecutors.

While prosecutors argued that the banker put the bank at risk, his own attorney described his motive as “pretty pure,” saying that it was his intention to save the bank. He argued that his actions were perhaps a “temporary lapse of judgment” at worst. During the trial, the man’s family and friends filled the courtroom in a show of support.

The businessman responsible for writing the bad checks was sentenced the day before. He too received a 3 1/2-year sentence. A third defendant was acquitted months before.

The small bank has since been closed by state regulators, with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation selling it to another bank.

While the bank president’s life of public service and failed attempts at saving the bank protected him from an overly harsh punishment, this is relatively rare for people accused of white-collar crimes. It is very possible that he could have been sentenced to much more time in prison or forced to pay an exorbitant fine.

Source: Star Tribune, “Ex-Pinehurst Bank chief gets prison for scam role,” Jennifer Bjorhus, Sept. 22, 2012

Find out more about what our practice has done on behalf of Minnesotans charged with white-collar crimes by visiting our website.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.