2019 Ohio 2458
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Brandon Ping was convicted by a jury of one count of receiving stolen property for using Kelly Ireland’s credit card to buy a $32.25 e-liquid purchase.
- Ping testified he received the card from a friend and did not know it was stolen; Chase Bank reimbursed the cardholder and absorbed the financial loss.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed community control, jail time, costs, and ordered Ping to pay $32.25 restitution to Chase Bank.
- Ping appealed, arguing Chase Bank was not a “victim” under R.C. 2929.18 and therefore could not receive restitution.
- The Tenth District, relying on its recent decision in State v. Allen, concluded a third‑party bank that reimburses a customer is not a “victim” for restitution purposes and vacated the restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a third‑party bank that reimbursed a cardholder is a “victim” entitled to restitution under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) | State: restitution to the entity that ultimately bore the loss is appropriate | Ping: the indictment identified the cardholder as the victim; Chase Bank is a third‑party and not a “victim” under the statute | Court: Bank that reimbursed customer is not a “victim” under R.C. 2929.18; restitution order to Chase vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- No officially reported (law‑reporter) Ohio appellate or supreme‑court decisions with Bluebook reporter citations are cited in the opinion. The court primarily relied on its own recent unreported decision in State v. Allen (2018‑Ohio‑1529) and several other unreported appellate decisions reaching the same conclusion that a reimbursing bank is not a "victim" for restitution purposes.