United States v. Peugh
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6269
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Peugh was convicted at trial of five counts of bank fraud, sentenced to 70 months, and ordered restitution of about $1.97 million.
- Hollewell testified that the grain-delivery contracts were a sham and Agri-Tech had no grain, with multiple witnesses corroborating the scheme.
- Indictment charged loan-fraud and check-kiting schemes involving three loans between Jan 1999 and Aug 2000.
- Hollewell pleaded guilty to one count and testified for the government; Peugh faced the other counts.
- At sentencing, Peugh challenged the loss amount, restitution scope, ex post facto issue, and comparable sentences to Hollewell; court ruled against him.
- The court imposed 70 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, and joint restitution for the three loans.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiplicity of counts for loans | Peugh argues counts 1–3 duplicate a single loan | Peugh contends multiple counts violate double jeopardy | No plain error; counts 1–3 execute a single bank-fraud scheme with separate loans |
| Sufficiency of evidence on intent to defraud | Prosecution showed fraudulent and misleading loan applications | Peugh asserts lack of proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt | Sufficient evidence; rational jury could infer intent to defraud |
| Ex post facto/ Demaree | Guidelines in effect at sentencing should be used | Using later guidelines violates ex post facto | Advisory nature of guidelines prevents ex post facto violation; Demaree affirmed |
| Loss amount calculation | Loss should include the principal amounts of the loans | Interest payments should reduce loss | Interest not deducted; loss measured by value exchanged; include principal |
| Restitution scope | Restitution covers losses from all three loans related to the scheme | Only losses tied to counts of conviction should be restitutioned | Restitution for the entire scheme; three loans included despite acquittals on counts 1 and 2 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2011) (multiplicity and plain-error review in double-jeopardy context)
- United States v. Allender, 62 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 1995) (each loan as a separate execution of a bank-fraud scheme)
- Longfellow v. United States, 43 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 1994) (distinguishes executions vs acts in furtherance of fraud)
- United States v. De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2001) (bank-fraud scheme executions can be charged separately)
- United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890 (4th Cir. 2000) (check-kiting/loan-fraud scheme context for multiplicity)