Background
Two brothers, Osakpamwan Henry Omoruyi and Osaretin Godspower Omoruyi, were convicted of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Between 2019 and 2020, while residing in Massachusetts, they used fraudulent passports to open multiple bank accounts at TD Bank and other financial institutions. Henry used a fake passport bearing the name “Clifford Bernard” with his photograph, while Osaretin used one bearing the name “Nelson Bright” with his photograph. They also opened accounts under the fake company name “Zion Cleaning.”
The brothers deposited proceeds from romance scams targeting vulnerable individuals, pandemic unemployment assistance fraud using stolen identities, and other impersonation schemes into these accounts. They exchanged account information with each other and overseas co-conspirators to facilitate fund transfers. Following an FBI investigation that discovered fake passports, false identification documents, prepaid debit cards, and banking records, both defendants were tried before a jury and convicted on all counts. Henry was sentenced to 78 months imprisonment; Osaretin to 72 months.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed all convictions. On the bank fraud charge, the defendants argued their convictions should fail because, as customers in fact, their withdrawals did not deprive the banks of something of value under Shaw v. United States (2016). The court rejected this defense, holding that the defendants were not legitimate bank customers. Because they obtained their customer status through fraudulent misrepresentation using fake identities, the legal customers were the fictitious persons (Clifford Bernard and Nelson Bright)—not the defendants themselves. The scheme to defraud the banks by misrepresenting identities and withdrawing fraudulently deposited funds satisfied the statutory requirement of depriving a bank of “something of value.”
The court also upheld jury instructions on materiality for bank fraud, rejecting the defendants’ argument that a stricter standard from Maslenjak v. United States should apply, finding Maslenjak (addressing false statements to immigration officials) inapplicable to bank fraud prosecution. The court affirmed jury instructions on conspiracy counts that permitted conviction based on conspiracy with persons other than the co-defendants, provided such conspiracy was “as charged in the indictment.” Finally, the court upheld a two-level sentencing enhancement for possession and use of authentication features in the fraudulent passports, and held the district court retained jurisdiction to enter a restitution order of $615,805.65—jointly and severally liable—even after the initial sentence had been appealed, consistent with the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act’s provisions for deferred determinations.
Key Takeaways
- Defendants who use fake identities to open bank accounts cannot invoke customer-protection principles from Shaw v. United States, as they are not legitimate bank customers.
- Materiality in bank fraud prosecutions requires only that false statements have a “natural tendency to influence” the bank’s decision-making, not the stricter standard applied in immigration fraud contexts.
- Jury instructions permitting conspiracy convictions based on co-conspirator agreements need not require convictions among all co-defendants so long as instructions consistently reference the conspiracy “as charged in the indictment.”
- Fake passports containing unique identifying numbers qualify as documents with “authentication features” under the Sentencing Guidelines, justifying enhancements in fraud prosecutions.
- District courts retain jurisdiction to enter deferred restitution orders under the MVRA even after initial-sentence appeals are filed if restitution determination was deferred within statutory timeframes.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that fraudsters cannot weaponize identity fraud as a shield against bank fraud charges. By clarifying that “customer” status obtained through fraud cannot trigger Shaw’s protections, the court closes a potential loophole in prosecuting sophisticated schemes involving false identities and synthetic identity fraud. The ruling prevents defendants from exploiting the technical distinction between who opened an account and who possesses it—a distinction criminals have increasingly tried to exploit.
For prosecutors and practitioners, the decision confirms that deferred restitution procedures do not strip courts of jurisdiction when entered within MVRA timeframes, preserving the ability to determine actual victim losses post-sentencing in complex fraud cases. The authentication feature enhancement’s affirmance further broadens guideline-based sentence increases in identity fraud prosecutions, impacting sentencing outcomes in the growing ecosystem of document forgery and identity-based schemes.