18 U.S.C. 1014 prohibits specified knowing false statements or reports, and willful overvaluation, made to influence covered lending or insurance decisions. It does not criminalize every disagreement over a loan estimate. Coverage of the institution and the actual statement must be established. [1]
Elements and penalties
The statute authorizes up to thirty years in prison and a fine up to $1 million. A statement must actually be false; a merely misleading but literally true statement is not enough under the Supreme Court’s 2025 Thompson decision. [2] Materiality is not a separate statutory element. [1]
The statute’s purpose-to-influence requirement is distinct from whether the lender ultimately relied on the statement or approved the loan. Thompson does not make omissions universally lawful: context can show that an apparently incomplete answer was actually false. The Court left that factual question for remand. A signed application, the exact question, and any supporting schedules should therefore be evaluated together. [2]
What to examine in the actual case
- Identify the covered institution and the exact factual assertion.
- Compare the assertion with records existing when it was made.
- Apply Thompson’s false-versus-misleading distinction in context; do not substitute a later financial change for proof of an earlier lie.
Practical example
A borrower reports a balance that was accurate when the form was signed but changes later. The government must establish falsity and knowledge at the relevant time, not just point to the later balance.
For related situations, see federal false-statement charges and criminal false claims against the government.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.