United States v. Horacio Munar, 419 F. App'x 600

Munar, a dual U.S.-Argentinian citizen, was charged by a nine-count superseding indictment: conspiracy to commit bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1344); seven counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud; and conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)).
The Government alleged a large-scale international bank-fraud scheme using third-party checks drawn on U.S. bank accounts, deposited by operators, with funds wired to Munar or transferred via global currency cards.
At trial, Barnicle identified Munar as “Oscar” and testified to depositing third-party checks and routing funds to Munar; other operators testified to contact with Munar under aliases and to similar schemes.
FBI evidence traced multiple operators and intermediaries (Lombardi, Nogueira, Juarez) and connected Munar through shipping documents, DHL accounts, and communications.
The jury found Munar guilty on all counts; the district court sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment (concurrent sentences across counts), three years of supervised release, and restitution of $1,683,018.85.
On appeal, Munar challenged sufficiency of the evidence, admission of a jury-room exhibit (577) not admitted at trial, denial of MapQuest cross-examination regarding exhibit 491, and a six-level multiple-victim enhancement under § 2B1.1.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence tying Munar to all counts	Branicle’s testimony links Munar to Barnicle; other operators’ evidence insufficient to connect Munar to all counts	Barnicle’s identification cannot alone tie Munar to all operators; other operators lacked direct identification	Evidence supports conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting bank-fraud counts; sufficient to uphold convictions on all counts
Admission of exhibit 577 in jury room	Exhibit 577 linked operators and was a permissible demonstrative aid	Exhibit not admitted into evidence; improper to send to jury room	Exhibit 577 was admitted as a pedagogical device, but the district court erred in admitting it to the jury room; error was otherwise harmless
MapQuest cross-examination on exhibit 491	MapQuest cross-examination could establish street-name discrepancy for Noguera	Court properly limited cross-examination; no Buenos Aires familiarity by Garver	District court did not abuse discretion; any error was harmless given other testimony and defense framing
Six-level multiple-victim enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C)	There were 250+ victims, including bank customers whose funds were delayed	Only banks were true victims; individuals were reimbursed; enhancement improper	Remand required; district court failed to rule on objection or make findings; enhancement vacated; convictions affirmed

Branham v. United States, 97 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 1996) (sufficiency standard for conspiracy and evidence-based inferences)
Damra, 621 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements of conspiracy; circumstantial proof)
Meyers, 646 F.2d 1142 (6th Cir. 1981) (common plan may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
Everett, 270 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2001) (bank-fraud elements; insured FDIC status)
Ayers, 386 F. App’x 558 (6th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy to money laundering; standard on appeal)
Yagar, 404 F.3d 967 (6th Cir. 2005) (victim definition for § 2B1.1(b)(2); actual loss rule; reimbursement impact)
Erpenbeck, 532 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008) (victims under § 2B1.1; contractors and liens context)
Stepanian, 570 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2009) (First Circuit on Yagar extension; not adopted here)
Bray, 139 F.3d 1104 (6th Cir. 1998) (pedagogical-device summaries; Rule 611 guidance)
Paulino, 935 F.2d 739 (6th Cir. 1991) (summaries as pedagogical devices; Rule 611 authority)
Gazie, 786 F.2d 1166 (6th Cir. 1986) (pedagogical devices in jury room access; cautionary limits)
Segines, 17 F.3d 847 (6th Cir. 1994) (tapes/records go to jury room; admissibility issues)
Scaife, 749 F.2d 338 (6th Cir. 1984) (harmless error when non-admitted item used; evidentiary foundation)