United States v. Stafford, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8509

Stafford, owner of a mortgage company, devised a scheme with luxury-home sellers to net kickbacks from inflated sales prices.
Stafford recruited seven straw buyers and referred them to Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corporation for stated-income, owner-occupied loan applications.
Black, Hathcock, and Arias allegedly forged buyers' signatures and prepared false loan documents.
Stafford promised straw buyers lump-sum payments, rental plans to cover mortgage payments, and eventual profit from appreciated property.
As housing prices fell, the plan unraveled, lenders pressed payments, and Black, Hathcock, and Arias confessed leading to Stafford's 51-count indictment and a 96-month sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to prove a conspiracy or agreement	Stafford	Stafford	Yes; sufficient evidence supported conspiracy and related fraud/money-laundering
Should the district court have admitted prior inconsistent statements	Stafford	Stafford	No abuse of discretion; court limited testimony to credible impeachment
Were sentencing enhancements proper	Stafford	Stafford	Yes; enhancements for obstruction, sophisticated means, and organizer/leader affirmed

United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2006) (sufficiency review and conspiracy knowledge standards)
United States v. Hughes, 505 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
United States v. Cantrell, 278 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2001) (requires knowledge of agreement for conspiracy liability)
United States v. Prince, 214 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2000) (knowledge requirement for money laundering element)
United States v. McDonald, 165 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 1999) (relevant to conspiracy and obstruction considerations)
United States v. Kraig, 99 F.3d 1361 (6th Cir. 1996) (sophisticated means enhancement considerations)