Eli Lubin and Glenn M. Tharp, Jr. v. United States

Lubin and Tharp were convicted under a one count indictment charging them with conspiracy ( 18 U.S.C. § 371 ) to steal property belonging to banks ( 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (b)), as banks are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (f). Their principal contention on appeal is that the evidence does not sustain their conviction. Because we agree with that contention, we do not consider the other points made by them.

The conspiracy, if any, was to take money and other property from the possession of Armored Transport of Los Angeles (Armored). This would be an offense under the laws of California (Cal.Pen.Code §§ 182, dealing with conspiracy, and 484, dealing with theft). It would be a federal offense only if the objective was to take “property or money * * * belonging to” a federally protected bank ( 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (b) and (f)), and the crucial question is whether the evidence shows such a conspiracy. (Cf. Twitch ell v. United States, 9 Cir., 313 F.2d 425 .)

Tharp was an employee of Armored. That company operated a fleet of armored vehicles in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Part of its business was to pick up money from the major offices of various large banks in central Los Angeles and…