United States v. Lekacos, No. 2-302.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
Writing for the CourtL. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit
Citation151 F.2d 170
Decision Date13 November 1945
Docket NumberNo. 2-302.
PartiesUNITED STATES v. LEKACOS et al.

151 F.2d 170 (1945)

UNITED STATES
v.
LEKACOS et al.

No. 2-302.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

August 7, 1945.

Writ of Certiorari Granted November 13, 1945.


151 F.2d 171

Henry G. Singer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for Kotteakos and Lekacos.

Herbert Zelenko and Weinberger & Weinberger, all of New York City (Harry M. Weinberger, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant Nathan Regenbogen.

Vine H. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Miles F. McDonald, U. S. Atty., both of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the United States.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Granted November 13, 1945. See 66 S.Ct. 169.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

Lekacos, Kotteakos and Regenbogen appeal from a judgment of conviction for a conspiracy to make fraudulent applications for loans under the National Housing Act, contrary to §§ 1702, 1703, 1715 and 1731 of Title 12, U.S.C.A. They raise only two points: (1) A material variance between the indictment and the evidence, in that the indictment was for a single conspiracy, and the evidence proved eight or ten separate and independent conspiracies; (2) an error in the judge's charge when he instructed the jury that they could convict only in case they found that there had been a single conspiracy; which, if true, should have led him to dismiss the indictment. The evidence was such that the jury might have found the following facts. One, Simon Brown, who was indicted with the thirty-one others, among whom were the three appellants, was president of a building company in Brooklyn, for which in 1928 he obtained loans from a bank under the National Housing Act, to aid in the construction of twelve houses which his company was building. For reasons which are irrelevant to this prosecution, and which in any event do not very definitely appear, this experience suggested to him a profitable opening for acting as a broker for other borrowers, about one hundred and ten loans in all, whom he charged a commission. He personally submitted to the same bank all the applications which were in the names of the borrowers — in one or two the names were fictitious — and ordinarily he received the cheques which were made payable to the applicants. The applications proposed uses for the money which were among those prescribed by the National Housing Act, but the uses actually

151 F.2d 172
intended were quite different, and the applications were therefore fraudulent. Lekacos, hearing from Brown that he was for the moment no longer in the building business, but was securing loans for others, told Brown that he would like a loan "to open up a law office," and, when Brown asked him what use should be declared in the application, Lekacos told him to say that it was for redecorating and painting a house of Lekacos's mother. Brown prepared such an application and Lekacos got the money. Later Lekacos borrowed more money, this time upon a fraudulent application in the name of his brother. Kotteakos and Regenbogen — who were partners in the cigarette and pin-ball machine business — had no connection with either of Lekacos's loans. Lekacos introduced Kotteakos to Brown, and he, and later Regenbogen, obtained personal loans upon fraudulent applications. Thereafter the two acted as intermediaries between Brown and other applicants, who filed applications, to the frauds in which both were privy

These were the facts on which the three appellants were found guilty; but the evidence was not confined to their dealings with Brown; it covered similarly fraudulent applications of many of the other accused, who, as we have said, may be divided into at least eight, and perhaps more, separate and independent groups, none of which had any connection with any other, though all dealt independently with Brown as their agent. Nothing said by Brown about any of the other groups concerned the three appellants; and in this we include not only the acts which he imputed to the others, but any declarations which he put in their mouths. The other important evidence of the prosecution — with the exception of some not very important testimony of two others of the accused who like Brown turned state's evidence — consisted of the testimony of workmen who were said to have done work on the buildings of some of the applicants and of investigators of the Federal Housing Authority, who had examined the uses to which the applicants had in fact put the borrowed money, which they found to have been different from those stated in the applications. Of this testimony that part which showed the discrepancy between the declared uses and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • People v. Ross, Cr. 10533
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 20, 1967
    ...States, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 199, revd. 326 U.S. 607, 66 S.Ct. 402, 90 L.Ed. 350; (Kotteakos v. United States) United States v. Lekacos, 151 F.2d 170, revd. 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557; United States v. Rubenstein, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 915; United States v. Bennett, 152 F.2d 342, rev......
  • Isaacs v. United States, No. 16655
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 20, 1962
    ...single general conspiracy by evidence which the Government conceded and the court of appeals had found (United States v. Lekacos, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 170) proved not one conspiracy but eight or more different ones of the same sort executed through a common key figure. The Supreme Court, in dis......
  • United States v. Baxter, No. 71-2082 to 71-2087
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 15, 1974
    ...it takes more than knowledge that he is a `fence' to make them such." 328 U.S. at 755, 66 S.Ct. at 1243, quoting United States v. Lekacos, 151 F.2d 170, 173 (2d Cir. ". . . the pattern was `that of several spokes meeting in a common center,' though, we may add, without the rim of the wheel ......
  • People v. Brinn, Nos. 36928
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 21, 1965
    ...similarity of operation, such as strangers disposing of stolen goods to a single receiver, (United States v. Lekacos (2d cir.) 151 F.2d 170,) or strangers obtaining different favors by bribes to a single official, (Canella v. United States (9th cir.) 157 F.2d 470,) does not necessarily invo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • People v. Ross, Cr. 10533
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 20, 1967
    ...States, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 199, revd. 326 U.S. 607, 66 S.Ct. 402, 90 L.Ed. 350; (Kotteakos v. United States) United States v. Lekacos, 151 F.2d 170, revd. 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557; United States v. Rubenstein, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 915; United States v. Bennett, 152 F.2d 342, rev......
  • Isaacs v. United States, No. 16655
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 20, 1962
    ...single general conspiracy by evidence which the Government conceded and the court of appeals had found (United States v. Lekacos, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 170) proved not one conspiracy but eight or more different ones of the same sort executed through a common key figure. The Supreme Court, in dis......
  • United States v. Baxter, No. 71-2082 to 71-2087
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 15, 1974
    ...it takes more than knowledge that he is a `fence' to make them such." 328 U.S. at 755, 66 S.Ct. at 1243, quoting United States v. Lekacos, 151 F.2d 170, 173 (2d Cir. ". . . the pattern was `that of several spokes meeting in a common center,' though, we may add, without the rim of the wheel ......
  • People v. Brinn, Nos. 36928
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 21, 1965
    ...similarity of operation, such as strangers disposing of stolen goods to a single receiver, (United States v. Lekacos (2d cir.) 151 F.2d 170,) or strangers obtaining different favors by bribes to a single official, (Canella v. United States (9th cir.) 157 F.2d 470,) does not necessarily invo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT