Fields in this case by failing to disclose her lack of authority to make the unauthorized transfer. See id. We found in Briggs that such a scheme clearly put financial institutions at risk even though the record may not indicate that they were actually threatened with civil liability. See id. at 13. McCauley and Chendeka participated in a factually similar conspiracy, and, clearly placed Chase Bank and MetroBank at a risk of loss. See id. The government need only prove a risk of loss to support McCauley’s and Chendeka’s convictions for bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. See id. at 12-13. We also note that the government need not prove a substantial likelihood of risk of loss to support the convictions. See United States v. Barakett, 994 F.2d 1107, 1111 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Saks, 964 F.2d 1514, 1519
holding that deposits of forged checks exposed banks to risk of loss even though they recovered the funds holding that currency cashiers checks and bank deposits are simply surrogates for each other and in modern society are cer tainly regarded as fungible when the question is ownership of the funds each represents holding that an order to disgorge funds was final even though the order did not distribute the funds holding that a waiter at a local restaurant was not engaged in commerce even though he made bank deposits for defendants holding that states may exercise their supervisory power to take custody of bank savings deposits