The Supreme Court is reviewing an appeal from Patrick Daley Thompson, who argues he was wrongly convicted of misleading bank regulators.
Thompson, who comes from a well-known political family, wants the justices to interpret the law more narrowly. He was found guilty in February 2022 of lying to regulators and filing false tax returns. He served four months in prison for these charges.
His case is significant as it touches on how federal authorities handle corruption cases. Last year, the Supreme Court limited the use of a bribery law that has been crucial in several Chicago cases.
In court, Thompson’s lawyer argued that the law should clearly distinguish between misleading and false statements. He pointed out that many federal laws use both terms, but the one against Thompson only mentions “false statements.”
The case revolves around a $219,000 loan Thompson received from Washington Federal Bank for Savings. He borrowed $110,000 in 2011 and later received more funds. The bank was shut down in 2017 due to fraud allegations.
Thompson didn’t pay interest on the loan and falsely claimed mortgage interest deductions on his tax returns. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation later tried to collect the money he owed.
During the hearing, Thompson disputed the amount he owed, saying he borrowed $110,000 but didn’t agree with the total on the invoice. His lawyer argued that Thompson’s statements were not false.
Some justices questioned the context of Thompson’s statements. Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that his claim could be seen as false when considering the full amount owed. However, Thompson’s lawyer maintained that he never claimed he only owed the smaller amount.
The Assistant U.S. Solicitor General argued for a broader interpretation of “false statement,” saying the jury was right to view Thompson’s statement as misleading. Sotomayor later hinted that the lower court might have erred in treating misleading and false statements as the same.
