United States v. Daniel Vanderzwaag
467 F. App'x 402
6th Cir.2012Background
- Daniel and Patricia VanderZwaag obtained two mortgages on the same property (2121 Oak Hollow Dr, Jenison, MI).
- Daniel provided false employment and earnings information for both loans; he also concealed the first lien from the second lender.
- Patricia aided the fraud by handling loan processes and transferring proceeds, and later applied for another mortgage using false info.
- Counts 1–2 charged mail and wire fraud and 2 involved aiding-and-abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2; counts 3–4 charged money laundering and bank fraud.
- Defendants were convicted on counts 1–2; Patricia separately challenged counts 3–4; sentencing issues were raised and appeals consolidated.
- The court affirmed the district court on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment and jury instructions permitted dual liability as principal and aider/abettor | Patricia as aider/abettor only; Daniel as principal only | Convictions possible under both theories; no need for specific theory | Affirmed; multiple theories permitted; no plain-error violation |
| Sufficiency of counts 1 and 2 evidence | Evidence showed material false statements by Daniel/Patricia | Some statements not material or only outside duty | Affirmed; ample evidence supported guilt under either theory |
| Sufficiency of count 3 (money laundering) | Patricia's conduct linked funds to laundering | Challenged link to laundering | Affirmed; record supported money-laundering conviction |
| Sufficiency of count 4 (bank fraud) | False info (including SSN) was material to loan decision | Argued non-material or lack of intent | Affirmed; material false statements established beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sentencing challenges (loss calculation, obstruction, variances, CHC, 3553(a)) | Guideline errors and variances warranted reversal | Court properly calculated loss and applied guidelines; variance not required | Affirmed; district court’s calculations and discretion upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Banks, 27 F. App’x 354 (6th Cir. 2001) (indictment can include multiple theories of liability for a single defendant)
- Hill v. Perini, 788 F.2d 406 (6th Cir. 1986) (indictment may charge principal and aider/abettor roles)
- United States v. Hopper, 436 F. App’x 414 (6th Cir. 2011) (convictions may rest on multiple liability theories)
- United States v. Floyd, 46 F.App’x 835 (6th Cir. 2002) (aiders and abettors theory embedded in indictment)
- United States v. Frazier, 595 F.3d 304 (6th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review when no Rule 29 motion)
- United States v. Mack, 159 F.3d 208 (6th Cir. 1998) (record need not be devoid of guilt for conviction to stand)
- United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983) (aiding-and-abetting theory recognized in broad statutes)
- Parish, 565 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court may reasonably estimate loss when loss calculation difficult)
- Lavoie, 19 F.3d 1102 (6th Cir. 1994) (actual vs intended loss in bank-fraud-like schemes)
- Chichy, 1 F.3d 1501 (6th Cir. 1993) (loss calculation considerations in fraud cases)
- Moored, 38 F.3d 1419 (6th Cir. 1994) (loss methodologies in fraud cases)
- Amen, 831 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1987) (statutory liability can attach beyond named participants)
- McGee, 529 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2008) (§ 2 valid even if not charged as aider/abettor)
- McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2007) (relevance of materiality standard in fraud)