a specified list in similar statutes, have consistently construed the phrase to capture those outside the enumerated offenders. See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 729 F.2d 441, 445 (7th Cir.1984) (finding that a natural and literal application of the phrase “connected in any capacity with,” when construing identical language in 18 U.S.C. § 657, covers those not technically an agent of the institution in question but who are doing its work); United States v. Coleman, 590 F.2d 228, 230-31 (7th Cir.1978) (finding sufficient connection for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 665 when an assistant director of a city department used personnel trained by another organization receiving the federal funds in question for impermissible jobs); United States v. Ratchford, 942 F.2d 702, 704-05 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Prater, 805 F.2d 1441, 1446
holding mortgage collection employee potentially liable for negligence and misrepresentation committed while working for bank holding that property manager not a professional when management authority had not been delegated to it holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank holding that a property manager working for a bank contractor was appropriately prosecuted under  657 holding that states interest in maintaining public confidence in bank management justifies postdeprivation hearing for removal of bank manager