Bank Robbery Attorney in Phoenix

A Phoenix Bank Robbery Case Can Be Federal, State, or Both

Bank robbery allegations in Phoenix can involve more than one criminal system.

Federal law creates specific offenses involving covered banks, credit unions, and savings and loan associations under 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Arizona also has separate robbery, aggravated robbery, and armed robbery statutes that may apply depending on how the alleged conduct occurred.

That means the first question is not simply, “Was a bank involved?”

The defense needs to determine which statute the government is relying on, which agency is investigating, where the case is being prosecuted, and what evidence supports each required element.

At Cates & Reed, PLLC, we have defended criminal cases throughout Arizona for more than 28 years. Our practice includes serious state and federal charges, and founding attorney Dwane Cates is a Board Certified Specialist in Criminal Law.

When Federal Bank Robbery Law Applies

Federal bank robbery is governed primarily by 18 U.S.C. § 2113.

The statute does not apply simply because a business happens to call itself a bank.

The government must establish that the institution falls within § 2113's federal definitions. Those definitions include specified federally regulated or federally insured banks, federal credit unions, qualifying NCUA-insured state credit unions, and covered savings and loan associations.

The FBI has had a longstanding role in bank robbery investigations and regularly works with local law enforcement. Phoenix-area cases have involved coordination among the FBI, Phoenix-area police departments, and federal prosecutors.

Federal investigation does not automatically determine where every case will be prosecuted, however. Depending on the circumstances, Arizona robbery charges may also be relevant.

For broader information about federal investigations and prosecutions, see our federal criminal defense practice.

What 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) Actually Covers

The first part of § 2113(a) reaches taking or attempting to take property or money from a covered financial institution through force and violence or intimidation. It also includes obtaining or attempting to obtain covered property by extortion.

A conviction under this portion of § 2113(a) can carry up to 20 years in federal prison.

The same subsection also contains a separate entry offense. It addresses entering or attempting to enter a covered bank, credit union, savings and loan association, or qualifying part of a building with intent to commit a federal felony affecting the institution or a larceny.

That means a § 2113(a) case does not always involve a completed taking of money.

The exact clause charged matters.

Bank Robbery and Bank Theft Are Separate Federal Offenses

Section 2113(b) covers bank theft rather than robbery.

For property exceeding $1,000, the statute requires a taking and carrying away with intent to steal or purloin and provides a maximum term of 10 years. When the value does not exceed $1,000, the maximum is one year.

One distinction is especially important.

Bank theft under § 2113(b) is not automatically a lesser-included offense of bank robbery under § 2113(a). The two provisions contain different statutory elements.

If the government cannot prove force, violence, or intimidation, that can undermine a robbery theory. It does not automatically convert the case into § 2113(b).

The defense should evaluate what offense was actually charged and whether the evidence proves the particular elements of that offense.

Intimidation Does Not Require a Displayed Gun

Many federal bank robbery cases turn on the word intimidation.

A firearm does not have to be displayed for prosecutors to allege intimidation. Express threats are not always required either.

Demand notes, statements, gestures, the circumstances at the teller counter, and other conduct can all become part of the analysis.

Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit evaluate intimidation from the perspective of whether the conduct would place an ordinary, reasonable person in fear of bodily harm.

That makes details important.

What did the note actually say? Was a threat made? Was a weapon claimed or displayed? What movements occurred? What did surveillance show? How did the interaction unfold?

Those facts can matter more than the general label placed on the encounter.

Weapons Can Change Federal Exposure in Two Different Ways

Weapon allegations can affect a bank robbery case through more than one statute.

Armed or Assaultive Conduct Under § 2113(d)

During specified § 2113 offenses, the federal penalty can increase when the accused assaults someone or puts a person's life in jeopardy through use of a dangerous weapon or device.

Section 2113(d) carries a maximum of 25 years.

A Separate Firearm Charge Under § 924(c)

Depending on the conduct and charges, federal prosecutors may also bring a separate firearm count under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

When § 924(c) applies, the statute generally provides:

• At least 5 years for qualifying firearm use, carrying, or possession
• At least 7 years if the firearm was brandished
• At least 10 years if the firearm was discharged

The § 924(c) prison term cannot run concurrently with the sentence for the underlying qualifying offense.

A weapon allegation therefore needs to be evaluated both under the bank robbery statute and under any separate firearm count.

For related Arizona and federal weapons defense, see our weapon charges practice.

Forced Accompaniment or Death Under § 2113(e)

The most serious part of the federal bank robbery statute addresses conduct occurring during the offense, while avoiding apprehension, or while attempting to escape arrest or confinement.

Section 2113(e) applies when the accused:

• Kills another person, or
• Forces another person to accompany the accused without that person's consent

Forced accompaniment carries a minimum federal prison term of 10 years.

If death results, federal law authorizes life imprisonment or, where legally applicable, the death penalty.

Because this subsection creates dramatically different exposure from a standard § 2113(a) case, the actual conduct alleged by prosecutors must be identified precisely.