scheme that creates a separate financial risk for the financial institution constitutes a separate execution.”); United States v. Anderson, 188 F.3d 886, 888 (7th Cir.1999) (“[T]he crime of bank fraud is complete when the defendant places the bank at a risk of financial loss, and not necessarily when the loss itself occurs.”); United States v. Rimell, 21 F.3d 281, 287 (8th Cir.1994) (stating that to determine what constitutes an execution of a bank fraud scheme one must first “ascertain the contours of the scheme”); United States v. Hord, 6 F.3d 276, 282 (5th Cir.1993) (finding that bank fraud plan was executed with each deposit of a bogus check in part because “it was the deposits that put the bank at risk”); see also United States v. Reitmeyer, 356 F.3d 1313, 1318 (10th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). There are of course situations where conduct
holding that breach will depend on whether the government acted reasonably in the substance and pace of its responses holding that the plaintiffs benefits were found in the new york state constitution and vested in the plaintiffs by the terms of a statutory scheme holding in the context of the major fraud act that determining when a scheme is executed will depend on factors including the goal of the plan its nature the benefits intended and whether the conduct created a new and independent financial risk holding the touchstone of determining existence of erisa plan is whether an administrative scheme is required holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue