United States v. Jason Weigand
23-2159
| 3rd Cir. | Jun 2, 2025Background
- Jason C. Weigand, a former financial advisor, defrauded clients of over $574,000 through a complex scheme between 2005 and 2019.
- His misconduct included impersonating clients, stealing identities, forging documents, and opening unauthorized financial accounts, particularly targeting two widows (A.R. and A.H.) who had recently lost their husbands.
- Weigand was convicted on all 30 counts in two consolidated indictments, including aggravated identity theft, wire fraud, and mail fraud.
- The trial court sentenced Weigand to 160 months, applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for vulnerable victims and a fourteen-level enhancement based on loss amount.
- On appeal, Weigand challenged his aggravated identity theft convictions (in light of Dubin v. United States), the vulnerable victim sentencing enhancement, and the loss calculation used at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Weigand's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Aggravated Identity Theft Convictions (post-Dubin) | Dubin requires vacating the aggravated identity theft convictions | Weigand’s conduct falls squarely within what Dubin still criminalizes | Convictions affirmed; Dubin does not apply |
| Vulnerable Victim Enhancement | Enhancement was improperly applied; victims were not "particularly vulnerable" | Victims' emotional state post-bereavement made them susceptible; enhancement proper | Enhancement affirmed, no clear error |
| Loss Calculation | Court miscalculated loss, failed to credit offsets and value of any services | Government’s expert credible; offsets not proven by Weigand | Loss calculation affirmed, no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023) (clarifies scope of aggravated identity theft statute, requiring misuse of identity to be central to the fraud)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (sets forth the plain error standard on appellate review)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (elaborates on the plain error rule and discretionary relief)
- United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2002) (articulates the three-part test for applying the vulnerable victim enhancement)
- United States v. Bryant, 655 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2011) (allocates the burden to the defendant to prove offsets for legitimate services rendered)