United States v. Yeung
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2817
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Yeung was convicted of crimes tied to a fraudulent real estate loan scheme involving straw buyers in San Francisco and Gilroy from 2005–2007.
- The district court ordered restitution totaling $1,321,564 for three loans, calculating losses under the Sentencing Guidelines without MVRA-specific explanation.
- Two schemes (Ferrari and Lam) are at issue: Ferrari loans to a straw buyer for 1351 Third Street and Lam loans to 261 San Fernando Way.
- The court valued losses by unpaid principal balance minus collateral proceeds, and treated collateral sale proceeds long after foreclosure as value; it did not show MVRA-based reasoning for value as of the date control was taken.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the restitution awards to Long Beach Trust and the J.P. Morgan Trust and remanded for recalculation with MVRA-compliant reasoning; it upheld NCUA restitution for Cal State 9, but remanded for valuation issues on the Lam collateral as to the other trusts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Long Beach Trust and J.P. Morgan Trust victims under MVRA? | Yeung: Trusts not victims since losses stem from market factors. | Government: Trusts were harmed proximately by Yeung's fraud as loan purchasers. | Yes; trusts may be victims; remand for valuation. |
| Was the loss amount for Ferrari and Lam loans properly calculated under MVRA? | Yeung: no evidence they paid principal; calculation may overstate loss. | Government: use outstanding balance minus collateral proceeds as loss. | Remand required; MVRA requires proper basis and explanation. |
| Did the district court correctly value collateral as of the date the victim took control? | Yeung: value fixed at date of collateral control; later sales not dispositive. | Government: collateral value should reflect interim transactions and market factors. | Remand; must value as of control date with explanation. |
| Was Cal State 9/NCUA restitution properly handled? | Yeung: challenge reliance on hearsay; ensure MVRA limits. | Government: NCUA qualifies as victim; hearsay permissible in sentencing. | Restitution to NCUA for $467,500 upheld. |
| Is remand appropriate where district court failed to explain MVRA calculations? | Yeung: lack of reasoning invalidates awards. | Government: some explanations exist; remand still appropriate for MVRA calculations. | Remand for recalculation and explicit MVRA reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hutchison, 22 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 1993) (guide for collateral value under restitution)
- United States v. Gossi, 608 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits of using foreclosure events for loss valuation)
- United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2008) (remand when district court lacks MVRA reasoning)
- United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (causal chain inMVRA restitution must be proximate)
- United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2011) (avoid windfall; restitution not exceed actual loss)