Dist. Ct. erred in finding that defendant-bank was not on "inquiry notice" of debtor’s wrongful pledging of its customers’ assets that debtor used to secure loans from defendant so as to defeat Trustee’s attempt to strip defendant of its secured creditor status under 11 USC section 548(a)(1)(A) after debtor filed for bankruptcy. While Dist. Ct. found that defendant lacked knowledge that debtor had actually pledged its customers’ assets without their permission, inquiry notice requires only knowledge that would lead reasonable person to inquire further for possible wrongdoing. Moreover, email from one of defendant’s Directors, who questioned amount of debtor’s proposed collateral when compared to its significantly lower amount of capital, was sufficient to place defendant on notice so as to require further inquiry on source of collateral. As such, Trustee’s request should have been granted so as to render defendant as unsecured creditor with respect to repayment of loan proceeds. Doctrine of equitable subordination did not apply so as to reduce defendant’s priority with respect to other creditors since defendant was only negligent with respect to its failure to uncover true status of debtor’s proposed collateral.