United States v. Marco Luis
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16710
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- MVRA restitution required when offense against property and there is a victim; Luis pleaded guilty to conspiracy to engage in monetary transactions in property from fraudulent loans; Chase and Citi suffered pecuniary loss as victims; district court fixed restitution amounts for Citi and Chase; court used wrong formula for Chase as loan purchaser; remand for recalculation only as to Chase; Citi calculation affirmed.
- Chase purchased the Rancho Santa Fe loans after WaMu assets were acquired; fraud undisclosed until 2010; foreclosure occurred in 2011 with sale price used to offset loss.
- Citi held Palomar loans; Citi sold first mortgage in 2010 at a loss; Citi wrote off second mortgage; district court offset based on mitigated losses rather than full unpaid balance.
- Luis argued MVRA does not apply to conspiracy to launder money; court held offense against property includes conspiracies and that victim status extends to loan purchasers like Chase.
- Final ruling: vacate and remand for Chase restitution recalculation under the loan purchaser formula; affirm Citi restitution; no Apprendi issue; costs allocated to the parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is restitution mandatory under MVRA for offense against property? | Luis contends MVRA not satisfied for property offense. | Luis argues require actual property damage or different scope. | Yes, MVRA applies; offense against property satisfied. |
| Are Chase and Citi victims for MVRA purposes? | Luis challenges Chase as not a victim. | Chase can be a victim as loan purchaser. | Chase and Citi are victims. |
| Proper restitution formula for loan purchaser (Chase) | district court used loan originator formula | Yeung requires purchaser formula. | Remand to apply purchaser formula. |
| Correct offset for Chase restitution (foreclosure sale vs proceeds) | Argues use foreclosure sale price as subtraction base | Robers requires subtracting proceeds received. | Offset by proceeds received; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stephens, 374 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2004) (offense against property includes failure to pay required support where loss is pecuniary)
- United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2012) (loan purchaser can be a victim; to be victim need fraud not discovered until after purchase)
- Robers v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1854 (2014) (restitution subtraction based on money received in selling collateral, not collateral value)
- United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2011) (MVRA applied to mortgage fraud schemes)
- United States v. Lazarenko, 624 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2010) (money laundering and conspiracy constitute offenses against property)
- United States v. Bush, 626 F.3d 527 (9th Cir. 2010) (money laundering/conspiracy context in MVRA)
- United States v. Rogers, 321 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2003) (MVRA applicability in related offenses)
- United States v. Diaz, 245 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2001) (MVRA applicability to property offenses)
- United States v. Polichemi, 219 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2000) (MVRA applicability to property offenses)