in a case where " ‘the fraud was directed against a customer of the depository institution which was then prejudiced in its dealings with the institution.' ” 152 F.3d at 195 (quoting United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d at 193). In both Bouyea and Pelullo, however, the defendant was not an employee of the bank, and the hypothetical should be read in such a context. That is much different from this case. 122 . See United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82, 93-94 (2d Cir.1997) (concluding defendant contemplated actual harm when scheme exposed bank to risk of loss that was "rather remote”); Walker, 191 F.3d at 335-36 (defrauding clients in part by exposing them to legal liability in event joint fraudulent applications are discovered); United States v. Autorino, 381 F.3d 48, 54 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). 123 . Ghavami, 2012 WL 2878126 at *6. 124 .
holding that claims that do not diminish or defeat the fdics interest in any specific asset are nevertheless doench barred in light of the established purpose of the doench  doctrine to protect the fdics reliance on the banks records holding that defendant defrauded fdic when actions diluted value of fdics security interest thereby being likely to frustrate and impair the fdics ability to realize the benefit of the interest holding that the thirty day removal period runs from the date of fdics plea in intervention and notice of substitution holding that  1821j applied to bar a claim seeking to attach a lien to a certificate of deposit in which the fdic had a security interest because the attachment would ultimately have an effect upon the fdics exercise of its powers as receiver holding that  1823e applies only when the fdics interest in a specific asset would be impaired by the alleged secret agreement