United States v. Fendler, 3:17-cr-50017

Defendant Todd J. Fendler was a licensed Illinois insurance producer who ran agency billing for commercial clients and held premium funds in trust accounts.
He executed a multi-year fraud by submitting unauthorized ACH withdrawals and creating fraudulent e‑checks, overwithdrawing, withdrawing after policy cancellations, and sometimes failing to forward premiums or altering coverage to pocket refunds.
He changed the withdrawing entity names (e.g., “N IL Ins Agency,” Northern Underwriting Managers) and received numerous client complaints and administrative license revocation orders (stayed pending hearings).
At sentencing the Presentence Investigation Report applied two enhancements: a 2‑level U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for sophisticated means and a 2‑level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abuse of trust; the government bore the burden to prove each.
The court evaluated whether the conduct was sufficiently complex to merit the sophisticated‑means enhancement and whether the abuse‑of‑trust adjustment applied under either Application Note 1 or the alternative in Application Note 2(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant’s fraud involved "sophisticated means" under § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)	Multi‑year scheme using multiple theft methods and changing entity names shows planning/concealment	Repetitive, coordinated withdrawals are not especially complex or intricate	Sustained defendant objection; enhancement denied — conduct lacked greater planning/concealment than typical fraud
Whether § 3B1.3 2‑level adjustment for abuse of trust applies	Fendler’s status as licensed producer gave access/authority to client account info, facilitating theft; also used clients’ means of identification	Obtained account numbers in routine course of business; no heightened trust beyond ordinary commercial relationship	Overruled defendant objection; § 3B1.3 applies under Application Note 2(B) because he used clients’ account numbers/means of identification without authority

United States v. Wayland, 549 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2008) (sophisticated conduct shows greater planning or concealment than typical fraud)
United States v. Sykes, 774 F.3d 1145 (7th Cir. 2014) (purpose of sophisticated‑means enhancement is to deter elaborate efforts to avoid detection)
United States v. DeMarco, 784 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 2015) (elements for § 3B1.3: position of trust and facilitation of offense)
United States v. Fuchs, 635 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2011) (abuse‑of‑trust requires more than ordinary commercial relationship; victim placed more than ordinary reliance)
United States v. Dorsey, 27 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 1994) (mere commercial relationship insufficient for § 3B1.3)
United States v. Stewart, 33 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 1994) (acknowledging defendant’s access and authority over solicited funds)
United States v. Cruz, 713 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2013) (Application Note 2(B) can independently support § 3B1.3 adjustment for misuse of means of identification)
United States v. Godsey, 690 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2012) (Application Note 2(B) is independent basis for § 3B1.3 even if Note 1 not met)
United States v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 2010) (plain reading of Note 2 supports adjustment without addressing Note 1 factors)