to a bank” and evidence that there was no loss is not a defense to either crime); Briggs, 965 F.2d at 12. Cf. United States v. Sprick, 233 F.3d 845, 853 (5th Cir.2000) (expressing no opinion on bank’s civil liability when government failed to offer evidence of liability when a financial advisor misused client’s funds). We dismissed the risk of loss argument made by appellants in United States v. Briggs when we considered a similar scheme in which an employee diverted millions of dollars from a corporate account to a personal bank account using unauthorized wire transfers. See 965 F.2d at 11. Briggs, like McCauley and Chendeka, claimed never to have made any overt misrepresentations or false statements to any financial institution. See id. Yet, Briggs acted similarly to L Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lemons, 941 F.2d 309, 316
holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan holding that consideration for guaranty of loan previously made was that guarantors friend the bank manager who issued the loan would not lose his job for making a bad loan holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the ucl holding that debtor did not satisfy the third prong because she did not seek out loan consolidation options even though she made several payments on her student loan debt holding that fraudulent loan transaction exposed financial institutions to risk of loss even though loan was secured