US v. Omoruyi, 24-1562

Background

Brothers Henry and Osaretin Omoruyi used fake passports and fake identities to open multiple bank accounts in Massachusetts between 2019 and 2020. 1
They used those accounts to receive proceeds from romance scams, unemployment scams, and other impersonation schemes, sharing account information with each other and overseas participants. 2
The FBI found fake passports, prepaid debit cards, and bank documents during searches of Henry's storage facility and Osaretin's home. 3
A jury convicted both brothers of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering after an eight-day trial. 4
The district court sentenced Henry to 78 months and Osaretin to 72 months, then later awarded $615,805.65 in restitution after a separate hearing. 5
The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, sentences, and restitution orders. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of bank-fraud evidence 7	Government failed to show the accounts deprived the banks of value because the brothers were the real customers.	Use of fake identities and withdrawals from insured bank accounts proved bank fraud and conspiracy.	Evidence was sufficient for both bank fraud and bank-fraud conspiracy. 8
Bank-fraud materiality instruction 9	Materiality required proof that truth would have changed the outcome.	The instruction matched First Circuit precedent and Maslenjak does not apply.	No plain error; the instruction correctly stated the law. 10
Response to jury's conspiracy questions 11	The answer allowed conviction on separate conspiracies not charged in the indictment.	The answer tracked the indictment and clarified that each defendant could conspire with others.	No legal error or abuse of discretion. 12
Authentication enhancement at sentencing 13	Fake passports did not involve authentication features under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(11).	The passports contained unique identifying numbers and were used to open accounts.	The two-level enhancement was proper. 14
Restitution jurisdiction and liability 15	The notice of appeal divested jurisdiction and restitution was improperly calculated and joint liability was wrong.	The MVRA allowed deferred restitution and the evidence supported the award and joint liability.	The district court had jurisdiction and properly entered restitution and joint-and-several liability. 16

Key Cases Cited

Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2016) (bank fraud under § 1344(1) requires a scheme to deprive the bank of something of value 17)
Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (U.S. 2017) (immigration-fraud materiality standard the brothers urged but the court declined to extend 18)
United States v. Moran, 393 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (materiality means a statement capable of influencing the decisionmaker 19)
United States v. Blasini-Lluberas, 169 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 1999) (conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including tacit agreement 20)
United States v. Jadlowe, 628 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing preserved instructional error 21)
United States v. Gonzalez, 570 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (jury instructions are reviewed as a whole and district courts have discretion in wording them 22)
United States v. Correia, 55 F.4th 12 (1st Cir. 2022) (juries are presumed to follow clear instructions 23)
Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (U.S. 2010) (court can retain restitution jurisdiction after the statutory deadline if restitution was timely deferred 24)
Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116 (U.S. 2017) (deferred restitution creates two appealable judgments 25)
United States v. Naphaeng, 906 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2018) (district court retained jurisdiction to enter amended restitution while appeal was pending 26)
United States v. George, 841 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2016) (distinguished because it involved forfeiture, not actively deferred restitution 27)
United States v. Carpenter, 941 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019) (explained George as a forfeiture case with no active deferral order 28)
United States v. Simon, 12 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (restitution awards need only reasonably respond to reliable evidence 29)
United States v. Carrasquillo-Vilches, 33 F.4th 36 (1st Cir. 2022) (MVRA restitution covers actual losses directly and proximately caused by the offense 30)
United States v. Alphas, 785 F.3d 775 (1st Cir. 2015) (MVRA requires an adequate causal link between offense conduct and loss 31)
United States v. Padilla-Galarza, 990 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2021) (once the government makes a prima facie showing, defendants must offer evidence reducing restitution 32)
United States v. Salas-Fernández, 620 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (sentencing courts may rely on reliable nontrial evidence at restitution hearings and may impose joint liability 33)
United States v. Gallardo-Ortiz, 666 F.3d 808 (1st Cir. 2012) (restitution proceedings are not governed by the normal rules of evidence 34)