758 F.3d 793
7th Cir.2014Background
- Moeser, a loan officer, helped obtain a bank loan for PARC by misrepresenting PARC’s equity and land ownership to his bank superiors.
- Moeser secretly loaned $30,500 to Woyan to purchase land and planned to be repaid with the construction loan proceeds, without disclosure.
- PARC drew on the loan repeatedly; Moeser reviewed and forwarded draw requests but did not disclose misrepresentations or diversion of funds.
- Moeser learned pre-final draw that project funds were used for an unrelated project (Lighting the Way) and advised continued misdirection to secure another loan.
- The 5th and Arthur project was never completed; contractors and a lumber supplier were unpaid; foreclosure occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moeser bears joint and several liability for full restitution under MVRA. | Moeser argues only losses he caused should be his. | Government contends co-conspirators are jointly liable for all foreseeable losses. | Co-defendants are jointly and severally liable for all losses within the conspiracy. |
| Whether the district court should have apportioned restitution reflecting Moeser's level of contribution. | Moeser seeks allocation to $23,048 for his limited misconduct. | Government argues no apportionment needed under MVRA; liability remains joint. | No abuse; court properly declined to apportion based on contribution. |
| Whether the court properly considered Moeser's economic circumstances in setting restitution or its payment schedule. | Moeser claims the court failed to consider financial resources in apportionment. | Government argues § 3664(f)(2) only requires consideration for payment schedule, not apportionment. | Court did not abuse discretion; considered financial circumstances for payment schedule and not required to apportion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Berkowitz, 732 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2013) (joint liability for all losses within conspiracy; standard de novo review)
- United States v. Dokich, 614 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 2010) (MVRA joint liability for conspirators' losses; no direct causation required)
- United States v. Martin, 195 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 1999) (joint liability for conspiracy losses; relevant to MVRA interpretation)
- United States v. Sensmeier, 361 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 2004) (restoration discretion; factors for apportionment)
- United States v. Day, 418 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005) (economic circumstances inform payment schedule, not apportionment)