Banks cant lend own money

There's enough evidence below to show that the lenders are acting outside their corporate authority to do what they do. This makes the lenders not the victims, but unable to recover damages or enforce their lending agreements due to the doctrine of "ultra vires" alone. This makes the criminal trial in CA against the orean !roup particularly a farce when the charges become "bank fraud", "mail fraud" or "wire fraud" when these are the things that the so called victims "lenders# have done. $%T&A '(&)* The $nited *tates Code, Title +,, *ection ,-, .aragraph / confers upon a bank the power to lend its money, not it's credit. (n 0irst 1ational Bank of Tallapoosa vs. 2onroe, +34 !a 5+-6 57 *.). ++,3 "+7++#, the court, after citing the statue heretofore said, "The provisions referred to do not give power to a national bank to guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for their benefit, nor is there any authority to issue them through such power incidental of the business of banking. A bank can lend it's money, not it's credit." 2eanwhile, they do it anyway from a profit motive, even though it flies in the face of their primary duty to protect people's money. In Howard & Foster Co. vs. Citizens National Bank of Union, 133 S.C. 202 130 S! "#$, %1&2"', it was stated, (It )as *een settled *e+ond ,ontrovers+ t)at a national *ank, -nder Federal law, *ein. li/ited in it0s 1ower and ,a1a,it+, ,annot lend it0s ,redit *+ .-aranteein. t)e de*t of anot)er. 2ll s-,) ,ontra,ts *ein. entered into *+ it0s offi,ers are -ltra vires and not *indin. -1on t)e ,or1oration. ( An activity constitutes an incidental power if it is closely related to an e8press power and is useful in carrying out the business of banking. *ee 0irst 1at. Bank of )astern Arkansas v. Taylor, 79/ 0.,d //4. But even with this latitude no hint of lending credit is provided in +, $.*.C. ,- that would give rise to an incidental power to lend credit. The e8ercise of powers not e8pressly granted to national banks is prohibited: 0irst 1ational Bank v. 1ational )8change Bank ,7 $.*. +,,, +,; California Bank v. <ennedy +5/ $.*. 35,, 35/ Concord Bank v. =awkins +/- $.*. 350urther, it is laid down as a general rule that a national bank cannot lend its credit by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for another. (In t)e federal ,o-rts, it is well settled t)at a national *ank )as not 1ower to lend its ,redit to anot)er *+ *e,o/in. s-ret+, indorser, or .-arantor for )i/.( *ee the following cases: . C.). =ealey > *on v. *tewardson 1at. Bank, + 1.).,d ;4;, ,;4 (ll. App. ,79.

.eople's 1at. Bank of ?inston@*alem vs. *outhern *tates 0inance Co., +,, *.). -+4, +7, 1.C. 57, -; A.%.&. 4+7. Colley v. Chowchilla 1at. Bank, ,44 .. +;;, ,99 C. /59, 4, A.%.&. 457. &ice > =utchins Atlanta Co. v. Commercial 1at. Bank of 2acon, ;; *.). 777, +; !a.App. +4+. 0irst 1at. Bank of =agerman v. *tringfield, ,34 .. ;7/, -9 (ll.App. 3/5 City 1at. Bank of ?ellington v. 2organ, Civ. App., ,4; *.?. 4/,. 0armers' > 2erchants' Bank of &eedsville v. <ingwood 1at. Bank, +9+ *.). /3-, ;4 ?.'a. 3/+. Best v. *tate Bank of Bruce, ,,+ 1.?. 3/7, +7/ ?is. ,9. A national bank's charter reAuires that they protect customers money first, and then make money second. 1ational banks are only allowed to make money in order to protect people's money@so one serves the other, but the priority is to protect. (n Central Transp. Co. v. .ullman, +37 $.*. 59, ++ *. Ct. -/;, 34 %. )d. 44, the court said: "A contract ultra vires being unlawful and void, not because it is in itself immoral, but because the corporation, by the law of its creation, is incapable of making it, the courts, while refusing to maintain any action upon the unlawful contract, have always striven to do Bustice between the parties, so far as could be done consistently with adherence to law, by permitting a property or money, parted with on the faith of the unlawful contract, to be recovered back, or compensation to be made for it. (n such case, however, the action is not maintained upon the unlawful contract, nor according to its terms6 but on an implied contract of the defendant to return, or failing to do that, to make compensation for, property or money which it has no right to retain. To maintain such an action is not to affirm, but to disaffirm, the unlawful contract." a. "?hen a contract is once declared ultra vires, the fact that it is e8ecuted does not validate it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it the basis of suitor action, nor does the doctrine of estoppel apply." 0and .& v. &ichmond b. (2 national *ank ,annot lend its ,redit to anot)er *+ *e,o/in. s-ret+, endorser, or .-arantor for )i/, s-,) an a,t is -ltra vires3( 4er,)ants Bank v. Baird 150 F 562. The following case cites also support this 2emorandum on credit loans and void contracts: (In t)e federal ,o-rts, it is well esta*lis)ed t)at a national *ank )as no 1ower to lend its ,redit to anot)er *+ *e,o/in. s-ret+, endorser, or .-arantor for )i/.( Far/ers and 4iners Bank v. Bl-efield Nat0l Bank, 11 F 2d $3, 2"1 U.S.55&. (2 national *ank )as no 1ower to lend its ,redit to an+ 1erson or ,or1oration3Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, &6 F &2# 35 CC2 ##3, ,ertiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1026, 1"5 US 5$2, 66 7!8 53". "2r. Custice 2arshall said: The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate

charters, and it probably is not invoked too often. Dinc Carbonate Co. v. 0irst 1ational Bank, +93 ?is +,4, /7 1? ,,7. American )8press Co. v. CitiEens *tate Bank, +7- 1? -39. (2 *ank /a+ not lend its ,redit to anot)er even t)o-.) s-,) a transa,tion t-rns o-t to )ave *een a *enefit to t)e *ank, and in s-11ort of t)is a list of ,ases /i.)t *e ,ited, w)i,)9wo-ld like a ,atalo. of s)i1s.( :!/1)asis added; Norton <ro,er+ Co. v. =eo1les Nat. Bank, 166 S! #0#. 1#1 >a 1&#. (It )as *een settled *e+ond ,ontrovers+ t)at a national *ank, -nder federal 7aw *ein. li/ited in its 1owers and ,a1a,it+, ,annot lend its ,redit *+ .-aranteein. t)e de*ts of anot)er. 2ll s-,) ,ontra,ts entered into *+ its offi,ers are -ltra vires3( Howard and Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat0l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 S! "#& %1&25'. (3,)e,ks, drafts, /one+ orders, and *ank notes are not lawf-l /one+ of t)e United States3( State v. Neilon, "3 =a, 326, 63 ?re 15$. "1either, as included in its power not incidental to them, it is a part of a bank's business to lend it's credit. (f a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. (f not careful, the power would be the mother of panics,F(ndeed, lending credit is the e8act opposite of lending money which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. ( 2orse. Banks and Banking 4th )d. *ec. 546 2agee, Banks and Banking, 3rd )d. *ec ,-;." American )8press Co. v. CitiEens *tate Bank, +7- 1? -,7. (It is not wit)in t)ose stat-tor+ 1owers for a national *ank, even t)o-.) solvent, to lend its ,redit to anot)er in an+ of t)e vario-s wa+s in w)i,) t)at /i.)t *e done.( Federal Inter/ediate Credit Bank v. 7 (Herrison, 33 F 2d $61, $62 %1&2&'. (@)ere is no do-*t *-t w)at t)e law is t)at national *ank ,annot lend its ,redit or *e,o/e an a,,o//odation endorser.( National Bank of Co//er,e v. 2tkinson, ## ! 6"1. "Fthe bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security6 but it must be money that it loans, not its credit." *eligman v. Charlottesville 1at. Bank, 3 =ughes 5-/, 0ed Case 1o. +,, 5-,, +937. "A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, e8press or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest." .arsons v. 0o8 +/7 !a 594, +/5 *) 5--. Also see <irkland v. Bailey, +44 *) ,d /9+ and $nited *tates v. 1eifert ?hite Co., ,-/ 0ed *upp ;/;, ;/7. "The word Gmoney' in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of e8changeF" %ane v. &ailey ,;9 <y 3+7, +33 *? ,d /4. (2 1ro/ise to 1a+ ,annot, *+ ar.-/ent, )owever in.enio-s, *e /ade t)e eA-ivalent of a,t-al 1a+/ent..( C)ristensen v. Bee*e, &1 = 133, 32 Uta) 605. (2 *ank is not t)e )older in d-e ,o-rse -1on /erel+ ,reditin. t)e de1ositors a,,o-nt.( Bankers @r-st v. Na.ler, 22& NBS 2d 162, 163. "A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money." Houng v. =embree, /3 .,d 373. "Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes Gfraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages." Barnsdall &efining

Corn, v. Birnam ?ood Iil Co., 7, 0 ,5 ;+/. "Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts." %eonard v. *pringer +7/ (ll 43,.5- 1) 39+. "(f any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise, one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise." 2enominee &iver Co. v. Augustus *pies % and C Co., +-/ ?is 447.4/,6 +3, 1? ++,,. "The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire." !uardian Agency v. !uardian 2ut. *avings Bank, ,,/ ?is 449, ,/7 1? ;3. "(t is not necessary for recession of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unBust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations. " ?hipp v. (verson, -3 ?is ,d +55. 0ederal eposit (nsurance Corporation v. Turner, ;57 0. ,d ,/9 "5th Cir. +7;7# "Turner was told that the blank for the debtor's name would be completed by adding the name of a company affiliated with Turner. $nknown to Turner, the guarantee was completed by filling in the name of a debtor with whom Turner was not affiliated and by altering the guarantee to change the name of the bankJcreditor. The court held that Turner could assert a fraud claim against the 0ederal eposit (nsurance Corporation as owner of the note in its corporate capacity." *outhern 2ortgage Company v. I' om, 577 0. *upp. +,,/ "*. . 2iss. +7;;# "The court held that the fraud claim was defective since it alleged a promise to perform an act in the future or a representation as to future eventsFThe court reBected this claim holding that there was no evidence that the lender had any sort of power or domination over the borrower who was free to seek financing elsewhere." American 1ational Bank > Trust Company v. =anson Construction Co., (nc., +77+ ?% -,55; "<y. +77+# "The court held that, considering the relationship of the parties, =anson was reasonable in relying upon the alleged representations by the bank. The court held that the future financing provisions were not so indefinite that it would be unreasonable for =anson to rely upon them. =anson's failure to read the loan documents was e8cusable since he was encouraged by the bank officer not to read them and the bank officer advised him not to have his lawyer present at the closing. The court affirmed a Bury award of compensatory and punitive damages against the bank." 1ibbi Brothers. (nc. v. Brannen *treet (nvestors, ,94 Cal. App. 3d +-+4 "+7;;# "The court acknowledged that the statute would not bar a claim for unBust enrichment if it could be shown that a benefit had been conferred on the lender by mistake, fraud, coercion or

reAuest. Thus, had =ome induced 1ibbi to provide work on the proBect under circumstances in which =ome's inducement fell under circumstances traditional categories of mistake, fraud, coercion or reAuest, a claim for unBust enrichment might escape the reach of the statutory bar." Bank of *un .rairie v. )sser, +4+ ?is.,d ++, --, 1.?.,d 4-9 "+7;7# "The court affirmed the Bury verdict in favor of )sser for fraud based upon evidence that at the closing the bank advised )sser that she was signing only for the new truck loan. The court held that )sser's reliance on the bank's misrepresentations was reasonable since she trusted the bank's security practices and believed that the guarantee only applied to the new loan. The court also held that the trial court should have submitted )sser's punitive damage claim to the Bury because of evidence that the bank's misrepresentation was active and the bank took advantage of )sser's trust and reliance." Touche &oss %imited v. 0ilipek, //; ..,d /,+ "=aw. +7;7# "the court held that the alleged misrepresentations made by the bank were material and actionable since it was claimed that the bank affiliate did not have the development e8pertise it was represented to have and had no intention of advancing the funds when the promise was made." Blankenheim v. ).0. =utton > Company, (nc., ,+/ Cal. App. 3d +-53 "+779# "The court held that a claim of negligent misrepresentation is included within the definition of "fraud" as used in the statute and as that term is defined in Civil Code K +4/,. The court also held that Auestions of fact were presented as to whether the investors had Bustifiably relied upon =utton's alleged representations concerning the investment." 0irst 1ational Bank of 2ontgomery vs. Cerome aly. "&egarding the power to delegate the control of our money supply to a private corporation can be found in +5 Am Cur ,d, *ection 3-/, which states: "The rule has become fi8ed that the legislature may not delegate legislative functions to private persons or groups, or to private corporations or a group of private corporations. " " "Banking Associations from the very nature of their business are prohibited from lending credit." "*t. %ouis *avings Bank vs. .armalee 74 $. *. 44/# "Banking corporations cannot lend credit." "0irst 1ational Bank of Amarillo vs. *laton (ndependent *chool istrict, Te8 Civ App +733, 4; *? ,d ;/9# "1owhere is the e8press authority granted to the corporation to lend its credit." "!ardilner Trust vs. Augusta Trust, +3- 2e +7+6 ,7+ $* ,-4# "A national bank has no authority to lend its credit." "Cohnston vs. Charlottesville 1ational Bank, C.C. 'a. +;/7, 0ed Cas. /-,4#

"A contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of corporate powers is unlawful and void." "2cCormick vs. 2arket 1ational Bank, +54 $.*. 43;# "1ote: Black's %aw ictionary: ultra vires @ %atin for "beyond powers." (t refers to conduct by a corporation or its officers that e8ceeds the powers granted by law.# espite the above court cases, &alph !elder, *uperintendent, epartment of Banks and Banking, *tate of 2aine, said on 0eb. ,9, +7/-, "A commercial bank is able to make a loan by simply creating a new demand deposit "so called checkbook money# through bookkeeping entry." This is in total contradiction to what the courts have said. Het, that is e8actly how the banks create the money to loan to its customers or to buy government bonds. "Act is ultra vires when corporation is without authority to perform it under any circumstance or for any purpose. By doctrine of ultra vires a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers is unlawful." "Community 0ed *>% vs. 0ields, +,; 0 ,nd /94# "A holder who does not give value cannot Aualify as a holder in due course." "$niform Commercial Code 3@393.+# Bank of Am. v. %a Colla !roup, 1o. 09-43+; "Cal. 4th App. ist. 2ay +7, ,994# A nonBudicial foreclosure sale conducted by mistake was invalid where the trustee had no right to sell the property since the buyer and lender entered into an agreement to cure the buyer's default. 1ational banking corporations are agencies or instruments of the general government, designed to aid in the administration of an important branch of the public service, and are an appropriate constitutional means to that end. .ollard v. *tate, Ala.+;;9, 54 Ala. 5,;. *ee, also, Tarrant v. Bessemer 1at. Bank, +7+3, 5+ *o. -/, / Ala.App. ,;4. A national bank cannot lend its credit or become the guarantor of the obligation of another unless it owns or has an interest in the obligation guaranteed especially where it receives no benefits therefrom. CitiEens' 1at. Bank of Cameron v. !ood &oads !ravel Co., Te8.Civ.App. +7,+, ,35 *.?. +43, dismissed w.o.B. A national bank has no power to guarantee the performance of a contract made for the sole benefit of another. 0irst 1at. Bank v. Crespi > Co., Te8.Civ.App. +7,9, ,+/ *.?. /94, dismissed w.o.B. 1ational banks have no power to negotiate loans for others. .ollock v. %umbermen's 1at. Bank of .ortland, Ir.+7+/, +5; .. 5+5, ;5 Ir. 3,-. A national bank cannot act as broker in lending its depositors' money to third persons. Byron v. 0irst 1at. Bank of &oseburg, Ir.+7+4, +-5 .. 4+5, /4 Ir. ,75. A national bank is not authoriEed to act as a broker in loaning the money of others. !row v.

Cockrill, Ark.+;7/, 37 *.?. 59, 53 Ark. -+;. *ee, also, <eyser v. =itE, 4+3.

ist.Col.+;;3, , 2ackey,

Ifficers of national bank in handling its funds are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and cannot make loans and furnish money contrary to law or in such improvident manner as to imperil its funds. 0irst 1at. Bank v. =umphreys, Ikla.+7+/, +5; .. -+9, 55 Ikla. +;5. &epresentations made by bank president to proposed surety as to borrower's assets, in connection with proposed loan by bank, held binding on bank. Houng v. !oetting, C.C.A.4 "Te8.# +7,5, +5 0.,d ,-;. Bank is liable for its vice president's participation in scheme to defraud depositor by facilitating prompt withdrawal of his money. 1ational City Bank v. Carter, C.C.A.5 "Tenn.# +7,5, +- 0.,d 7-9. A national bank receiving the proceeds of a customer's note and mortgage with authority to pay out the same upon a first mortgage lien upon real estate is acting intra vires and liable for breach of its duty. Brandenburg v. 0irst 1at. Bank of Casselton, 1. .+7,+, +;3 1.?. 5-3, -; 1. . +/5. (t has been held that the right to discount and negotiate notes, etc., goes no further than to authoriEe the taking of them in return for a loan of money made on the strength of the promises contained in them, and does not contemplate a purchase in the market. %aEear v. 1ational $nion Bank, 2d.+;/7, 4, 2d. /;, 35 Am.&ep. 344. *ee, also, &ochester 0irst 1at. Bank v. .ierson, +;//, ,- 2inn. +-9, 3+ Am.&ep. 3-+. 1ational bank is not authoriEed under national banking laws to lend deposited money on depositor's behalf. Carr v. ?eiser *tate Bank of ?eiser, (daho +73/, 55 ..,d +++5, 4/ (daho 477. $nder this section, a national bank had no authority to enter into a contract for loaning money of a depositor kept in a deposit account through its cashier authoriEed by the depositor to draw thereon to make loans. =olmes v. $valde 1at. Bank, Te8.Civ.App. +7,9, ,,, *.?. 5-9, error refused. A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. !row v. Cockrill, Ark.+;7/, 37 *.?. 59, 53 Ark. -+;. A "deposit for a specified purpose" is one in the making of which a trust fund is constituted with respect to which a special duty as to its application is assumed by the bank. Cooper v. 1ational Bank of *avannah, !a.App.+7+/, 7- *.). 5++, ,+ !a.App. 345, certiorari granted 3; *.Ct. -,3, ,-5 $.*. 5/9, 5, %.)d. 73+, affirmed -9 *.Ct. 4;, ,4+ $.*. +9;, 5- %.)d. +/+. 0und, deposited in bank for special purpose subBect to depositor's check, remains property of depositor. $.*. *hipping Board )mergency 0leet Corporation v. Atlantic Corporation,

.C.2ass.+7,4, 4 0.,d 4,7, error dismissed +5 0.,d ,/. '(n the case of a special deposit, the bank assumes merely the charge or custody of property, without authority to use it, and the depositor is entitled to receive back the identical money or thing deposited. (n such case, the right of property remains in the depositor, and if the deposit is of money, the bank may not mingle it with its own funds. The relation created is that of bailor and bailee, and not that of debtor and creditor.' 3 &.C.%. 4,,. Tuckerman v. 2earns, App. .C.+7+7, ,5, 0. 59/, -7 App. .C. +43. 1ational banks are liable for the loss of property held by them merely for the accommodation of their customers, without any consideration for the keeping of it e8cept the profit derived from the banking business of such customers. *ecurity 1at. Bank v. =ome 1at. Bank, <an.+7,9, +;/ .. 57/, +95 <an. 393. (n securities law, the most important reAuirement is full disclosure. (nvestors have to be given the full scoop. Hou cannot hold anything back. )verything@lawsuits , criminal records, market share, debt@has to be disclosed. This same type of disclosure is reAuired in the Truth in %ending Act as well. ?ith that said, why is it that no one has ever heard of this legal argumentL ?ell, probably because they have not been told. But don't you think that it is important and relevant to tell potential loan customers, as well as bank shareholders, that according to the $* Code and numerous Budicial decisions, it is Auestionable whether a national bank is actually authoriEed to lend credit, become a guarantor, or become suretyL They should at least say something to their customers and shareholders along the lines of this: " isclaimer: ?e the bank, are lending credit, guaranteeing debts and becoming surety, through our lending business, for profit. The Comptroller of Currency approves. Congress has been silent in recent years. =owever, both federal and state courts in the past have repeatedly told us that the 1ational Bank Act does not provide for this activity. Therefore, at any point in the future, the bank could be subBect to either federal or state cease and desist orders. (n that event the bank will reAuire immediate and full payments and will cancel your credit or loan. 0urther, the bank may be e8posed to civil lawsuits from all its former loan Clients and shareholders. " =ere are other things to consider: (f a party breaches its authority, by entering into an agreement that it knows it is not allowed by law to e8ecute, is it moral to allow that party to enforce the agreementL (s it moral to force a person to pay on a loan, when that person did not know that the bank did not have the legal authority to issue credit or to become suretyL (s it moral for a bank to place a negative mark on your credit report, when they did not have the authority to enter into the agreement in the first place, and that any deficit in payment has been insured by a third party insurance company and can be written off as a claimL (n addition to these three points, consider also that moral arguments "arguments based in eAuity#, verses legal arguments "arguments based in law#, are only upheld if the party seeking to enforce the agreement comes to the court with "clean hands." This concept is known as the clean hands doctrine. ?hat this doctrine means is that if a bank desires to enforce an

agreement based on eAuity "morality#, then they must have acted eAuitable "moral#. (n the case of credit, if the banks know that the law prevents them from loaning credit "there is over a hundred years of case law on this point# and they do it anyway, then they simply do not have clean hands, and cannot argue their case in eAuity. Therefore they must argue in law. 2)A1?=(%), T=) %A? .&)')1T* T=)2 0&I2 %IA1(1! C&) (T. There are penalties and forfeitures attached to what the bank did. (n this case there are. (n fact there are penalties attached to national banks going beyond their e8press powers in that they are e8posing depositor's money to loss in contradiction to the bank's primary duty. Therefore, the issue that can be raise is the argument of ultra virus and not only is the contract void, but even if the borrower did receive a benefit, the borrower was not unBustly enriched. (f the contract is void then both parties walk away as if there never was a contract. The Budge is then asked to declare a Eero balance and deem it as paid as agreed. *ince the borrower provided the value for the source of funds, the borrower is also entitled to a Budgment in the amount of the highest credit limit issued or loan amount. Also, since the banks acts demonstrates that the bank took unfair advantage of the borrower, this results in the bank needing to be penaliEed. Typically, the borrower is entitled to ask for a financial award against the bank in the amount of the debt forgiven. *ince fraud is committed, the borrower is entitled to all sums paid on the contract including interest, plus treble "triple# damages, attorney fees e8pended and court and other costs in addition. The borrower can also demands a Eero balance on this debt, and a voidance of the loan agreement, and a financial Budgment in favor of the borrower due to the bad behaviour of the lender. A (T(I1A% BI&&I?)&* &)%()0

(n 0ederal istrict Court, the borrower may have additional claims for relief under "Civil &(CI" 0ederal &acketeering laws. "+; $.*.C. +75-# As the lender may have established a "pattern of racketeering activity" by using the $.*. 2ail more than twice to collect an unlawful debt and the lender may be in violation of +; $.*.C. +3-+, +3-3, +75+ and +75,. The borrower may have other claims for relief. (f he can prove there was or is a conspiracy to deprive him of property without due process of law. $nder -, $.*.C. +7;3 "Constitutional (nBury#, +7;4 "Conspiracy# and +7;5 ""knowledge" and "1eglect to .revent" a $.*. Constitutional ?rong#. $nder +; $.*.C.A. ,-+ "Conspiracy# violators, "shall be fined not more than M+9,999 or imprisoned not more than ten "+9# years or both. (n a ebtor's &(CI action against its creditor, alleging that the creditor had collected an unlawful debt, an interest rate "where all loan charges were added together# that e8ceeded, in the language of the &(CI *tatute, "twice the enforceable rate." The Court found no reason to impose a reAuirement that the .laintiff show the efendant had been convicted of collecting an unlawful debt, running a "loan sharking" operation. The debt included the fact that e8action of a usurious interest rate rendered the debt unlawful and that is all that is necessary to support the Civil &(CI action. urante Bros. And *ons, (nc. v. 0lushing 1at'l Bank, /44 0,d ,37, Cert. enied, -/3 $* 795 "+7;4#.,4. The *upreme Court found that the .laintiff in a civil &(CI action, need establish only a criminal "violation" and not a criminal conviction.

0urther, the court held that the efendant need only have caused harm to the .laintiff by the commission of a predicate offense in such a way as to constitute a "pattern of &acketeering activity." That is, the .laintiff need not demonstrate that the efendant is an organiEed crime figure, a mobster in the popular sense, or that the .laintiff has suffered some type of special &acketeering inBury6 all that the .laintiff must show is what the *tatute specifically reAuires. The &(CI *tatute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to effect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the *tatute. *edima, *.&% v. (mre8 Co., -/3 $* -/7 "+7;4#.