Common-law rule holding that the place where the lender received he false statement establishes venue is inconsistent with the rule that the location of the crime is to be determined by the nature of the crime and the location of the acts.
Where the indictment alleges fraud in the supporting documents and the theory of the case becomes fraud in the application itself, there is no constructive amendment, since the offense as alleged included fraudulent verification of supporting documents at closing.
There is no requirement to establish that the fraudulent statement affected the lending decision; rather, it need only have a natural tendency to influence such a decision.
Reference in closing to truth-seeking role of the finder of fact did not dilute the required standard of proof.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40740-CR0.pdf
