Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Rymtech, a mortgage reduction program, purported to provide financial assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure. Daniel, its Vice President, recruited homeowners to place their properties in the program and instructed them to sign over title to straw purchasers called “A buyers.” Homeowners were told that title would be placed in trust, that A buyers would obtain financing to pay off the mortgage, and that they would regain clear title in five years. Daniel instructed loan officers to prepare fraudulent loan applications on behalf of A buyers. Even if Rymtech had invested all of the owners’ equity, implausibly high rates of return would have been required to make the mortgage payments. The equity was actually primarily used to operate Rymtech. When its finances started to disintegrate, Daniel continued to recruit homeowners. After the program failed Daniel was convicted of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and an argument that the court erred in rejecting his proposed instruction, requiring the jury to agree unanimously on a specific fraudulent representation, pretense, promise, or act. Unanimity is only required for the existence of the scheme itself and not in regard to a specific false representation. View "United States v. Daniel" on Justia Law

In 2007 Donelli’s family rented a house from the elderly Viguses. Donelli falsely told the Viguses that her minor daughter would receive a $750,000 settlement because of a car accident with an oil company employee. She persuaded them to “lend” her money 500 times, signing promissory notes for $443,000. Most was spent on vacations. None was reported to the IRS as income. The Viguses never saw any repayment. Donelli pled guilty to tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. 7201, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. The presentence report said that Donelli sought treatment for drug abuse in 2012 from a psychiatrist, who diagnosed Donelli with “Type II Bipolar Disorder.” The report included no further information about the illness or its impact on Donelli. The court adopted the report, including an uncontested guideline range of 41 to 51 months. Donelli did not submit a sentencing memorandum or any evidence. Donelli orally attributed her crime to her addiction to prescription opioids. The district judge acknowledged the reference to Donelli’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder and imposed a sentence of 60 months, stating that the guidelines did not “capture the extent of the harm here.” Donelli’s lawyer repeated that the guidelines already accounted for the nature of the harm, but did not object to the sufficiency of the court’s explanation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Donelli failed to present her diagnosis as a principal argument in mitigation and waived her claim of a Cunningham procedural error by stating that she had no objection apart from the sentence being above the guideline range. View "United States v. Donelli" on Justia Law

After she was unable to sell her Henderson, Kentucky house, Hargis solicited Vashaun to burn it down for a payment of $10,000, so that she could collect a settlement from her insurance company. White burned down the house in December 2007, and both were charged with conspiracy to use fire to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 844(m), and unlawful structuring of cash withdrawals, 31 U.S.C. 5313, 5324(a)(3), 5322(a). After first denying her involvement, Hargis pleaded guilty to conspiracy in exchange for the government dismissing the structuring charge. The district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 60 months imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court erred when it applied upward adjustments for obstruction of justice, U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, and her aggravating role in the offense, View "United States v. Hargis" on Justia Law

Malone owned a cattle feedlot. He cared for cattle, including some owned by GLS, and worked as an agent of GLS to buy cattle. Anderson was president of GLS, which was owned by others. GLS’s cattle were collateral for its loans. In 2008, the feedlot started losing money, jeopardizing Malone’s business and GLS’s loans. Malone and Anderson began kiting checks; one would write a check to the other, and before it was collected, the other would write a check back to the first. Malone was overdrawn by $400,000 in 2009. Malone and Anderson arranged to sell O’Hern 700 cattle. O’Hern paid $400,000, which Malone deposited to his overdrawn bank account. In reality, there were no cattle. Malone gave O’Hern $115,000. Unsatisfied, O’Hern visited the feedlot and removed cattle that did not belong to Malone; obtained liens on property owned by Malone and Anderson; and filed a state court civil suit. Malone pled guilty to bank fraud and money laundering. He urged the district judge to refrain from ordering restitution, arguing that O’Hern had already received full recovery and that the judge exercise her discretion under 18 U.S.C. 3663A(c)(3)(B), because the need to compensate O’Hern was outweighed by the burden of determining complex issues regarding his losses. The judge imposed restitution of $285,000, stating that she had no discretion under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the award as supported by the preponderance of the evidence regarding O’Hern’s loss and the cash returned to him, the only relevant factors. It would have been error for the judge to consider other amounts O’Hern may be adjudged to owe Malone or Anderson in the state court litigation. View "United States v. Malone" on Justia Law

Morales operated IPS to defraud small businesses. His sales agents contacted business owners and offered to collect on bad checks for a small commission. The agents would tell the owners that they worked for another business, not IPS, and asked them for personal information and a voided check, ostensibly for wiring funds. With that data, IPS made unauthorized withdrawals from bank accounts through financial intermediaries, stating that the withdrawals covered payments for credit card processing equipment. IPS neither collected bad checks nor leased credit‐card processing equipment. IPS fraudulently withdrew $645,000. In 2004, a team led by Secret Service Agent Kane executed a search warrant on IPS’s office and found extensive evidence. Morales was indicted for mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341. At trial, the government presented witnesses including 10 victims, forensic analysts, the IPS receptionist, and Agent Kane. Convicted, Morales was sentenced to nine years in prison. Three weeks after the trial, an assistant U.S. attorney sent Morales’s lawyer two emails from Agent Kane to government attorneys that had not previously been disclosed. One attached a screenshot from the laptop as it appeared when discovered in Morales’s office; the other responded concerning picking up a grand jury subpoena for Paulina Morales. The email included a threat to "taze" Morales’s pet, although that never happened. The court denied a motion for a new trial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding any Brady violation harmless because evidence implicating Morales was overwhelming. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

Walker was involved in a mortgage fraud scheme involving at least 10 loans and seven Chicago-area properties. Walker served as both a fraudulent buyer and seller and used his then‐girlfriend as a straw purchaser in some transactions. The loans went into default and the properties were foreclosed on, causing an estimated $956,300 in loss to the lender. Walker’s attorney entered his appearance just weeks before trial and sought to investigate whether illegally-seized material from an unrelated state case (involving Walker’s arrest for possession of a gun and the ensuing search of his home) may have been the basis of the federal case The government maintained that its evidence came from lenders, title companies, financial institutions and eyewitness testimony, not from the state search. The government informed the district court that a suburban police department held the evidence and had affirmed it had no connection with or knowledge of the federal case. Walker did not attempt to obtain that evidence and was convicted of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that failure to turn over the state case evidence constituted a Brady violation and that the court erred when it refused to give Walker’s proposed buyer‐seller jury instruction and in ordering restitution.View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Through Amusements Inc., owned by Szaflarski, a criminal enterprise distributed “video gambling devices” to bars and restaurants. The machines allow customers to deposit money in return for virtual credits and are legal for amusement only. The enterprise and the establishments, however, permitted customers to redeem credits for cash. The devices were modified to track money coming in and payouts, so that establishment owners and the enterprise could divide the profits. When a rival company encroached on Amusements Inc.’s turf, the enterprise placed a pipe bomb outside the rival’s headquarters. In addition to gambling, the enterprise committed home and jewelry‐store robberies, fenced stolen items through Goldberg Jewelers, owned by Polchan, and dealt in stolen cigarettes and electronics. Sarno was at the top of the enterprise’s hierarchy, followed by Polchan. Volpendesto was a perpetrator of robberies. The three were indicted for conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). Sarno and Polchan were indicted for conducting an illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. 1955; and Polchan for additional counts, including use of an explosive device, conspiracy to do so, 18 U.S.C. 844(i) and (n), and conspiracy to obstruct justice, 18 U.S.C. 1512(k). Others indicted included Szaflarski and Volpendesto’s father, and two police officers. Most entered pleas. Volpendesto, Polchan, and Sarno were convicted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and the sentences. View "United States v. Sarno" on Justia Law

Abair emigrated from Russia in 2005 and married an American citizen. Abair owned an apartment in Moscow. After her divorce, Abair sold the apartment and deposited the proceeds with Citibank Moscow. She signed a contract to buy an Indiana home for cash. Citibank refused to transfer funds because her local account was in her married name and the Moscow account used her birth name. Over two weeks Abair withdrew the daily maximum ($6400) from Citibank ATMs and deposited $6400 to $9800 at her local bank. A deposit on Tuesday, May 31 followed the Memorial Day weekend and was posted with one made on Saturday, pushing her “daily” deposit over the $10,000 trigger for reporting, 31 U.S.C. 5313(a). Abair was charged with structuring financial transactions to evade reporting. IRS agents testified that during her unrecorded interview, Abair, who is not fluent in English, revealed knowledge of the reporting rules. Abair testified that she was aware of the limit when she spoke with the agents, but had learned about it after making the deposits, when she asked why identification was required. She said her deposit amounts were based on how much cash would fit in her purse. Abair was convicted and agreed to forfeit the entire proceeds. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding that the government lacked a good faith basis for believing that Abair lied on tax and financial aid forms and that the court erred (Rule 608(b)) by allowing the prosecutor to ask accusatory, prejudicial questions about them. On the record, Abair is at most a first offender, according to the court, which expressed “serious doubts” that forfeiture of $67,000 comports with the “principle of proportionality” under the Excessive Fines Clause. View "United States v. Abair" on Justia Law

Sentinel specialized in short-term cash management, promising to invest customers’ cash in safe securities for good returns with high liquidity. Customers did not acquire rights to specific securities, but received a pro rata share of the value of securities in an investment pool (Segment) based on the type of customer and regulations that applied to that customer. Segment 1 was protected by the Commodity Exchange Act; Segment 3 customers by the Investment Advisors Act and SEC regulations. Despite those laws, Sentinel lumped cash together, used it to purchase risky securities, and issued misleading statements. Some securities were collateral for a loan (BONY). In 2007 customers began demanding cash and BONY pressured Sentinel for payment. Sentinel moved $166 million in corporate securities out of a Segment 1 trust to a lienable account as collateral for BONY and sold Segment 1 and 3 securities to pay BONY. Sentinel filed for bankruptcy after returning $264 million to Segment 1 from a lienable account and moving $290 million from the Segment 3 trust to the lienable account. After informing customers that it would not honor redemption requests, Sentinel distributed the full cash value of their accounts to some Segment 1 groups. After filing for bankruptcy Sentinel obtained bankruptcy court permission to have BONY distribute $300 million from Sentinel accounts to favored customers. The trustee obtained district court approval to avoid the transfers, 11 U.S.C. 547; 11 U.S.C. 549. The Seventh Circuit, noting the unique conflict between the rights of two groups of wronged customers, reversed. Sentinel’s pre-petition transfer fell within the securities exception in 11 U.S.C. 546(e); the post-petition transfer was authorized by the bankruptcy court, 11 U.S.C. 549. Neither can be avoided.View "Grede v. FCStone LLC" on Justia Law

In 2009 Betty and Wayne submitted a tax return on behalf of a Betty Phillips Trust, signed by Betty, who was listed as the trustee, claiming income of $47,997. A second return on behalf of a Wayne Phillips trust, was signed by Wayne, but Betty was listed as trustee. This return reported income of $1,057,585. Both returns claimed that all income had gone to pay fiduciary fees, so that the trusts had no taxable income. The Wayne Trust claimed a refund of $352,528. The Betty Trust claimed $15,999. The IRS issued a check for $352,528. They endorsed the check and deposited it into a joint account. The returns were fraudulent. The IRS had no record of any taxes being paid by the trusts. In December, the IRS served summonses. That month, the couple withdrew $244,137 remaining from their refund proceeds using 13 different locations. They followed the same strategy the next year, but did not receive checks. A jury convicted Betty of conspiracy to defraud the government with respect to claims (18 U.S.C. 286), and of knowingly making a false claim to the government (18 U.S.C. 287.1). The district court sentenced her to 41 months’ imprisonment and ordered them to pay $352,528 in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the court improperly admitted evidence, and that the government constructively amended the indictment and violated Betty’s right against self‐incrimination.View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law