MVRA Restitution And Loss Amount Inadequate, Eleventh Circuit Holds
United States v. Mitchell J. Stein : Mitchell Stein, a former attorney, challenged the district court’s loss and MVRA restitution determination in a mail, wire, and securities fraud prosecution arguing that the Government had failed to demonstrate both factual and legal causation for the loss amount.Using the same standard for Stein’s loss and restitution challenge, the Eleventh Circuit held that it agreed “with Mr. Stein that to establish an actual loss figure under the guidelines or the MVRA restitution based on investors' losses, the government must prove that, in deciding to purchase Signalife stock, investors relied on the fraudulent information Mr. Stein disseminated.
In United States v. Mitchell J. Stein, the district court found that more than 2,000 investors relied on Mr. Stein's fraudulent information, but the only evidence supporting this finding was the testimony of two individuals that they relied on Mr. Stein's false press releases and generalized evidence that some investors may rely on some public information. This evidence was insufficient to permit reliance to be inferred for over 2,000 investors.
Accordingly, the district court erred in calculating an actual loss figure based on the losses of all these investors. The district court also failed to determine whether intervening events caused the Signalife stock price to drop and, if so, whether these events were unforeseeable such that their effects should be subtracted from the actual loss figure.”
The case was remanded for further proceedings. United States v. Stein, No. 14-15621 (11th Cir. 2017).
You can check the latest updates on the case by visiting here.
Recommended for you
Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions
At Martin Bradley III’s trial for racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, the district court had two ex parte communications with the jury. Bradley’s defense lawyers did not become aware of notes until after his appeal. Bradley filed a 2255 motion arguing, in addition to other things, that the court had violated Rule…
Supervised Release Cannot Be Revoked After Supervision Term Ends
Anthony Holman’s supervised release was revoked for failing to pay restitution and picking up a new charge. However, the violation petition was not submitted until after Holman’s term of supervision had already expired. No summons was pending at the time either. Generally, whenever a U.S. Probation Officer believes that a defendant has violated his or…
Burrage Applies Retroactively To Cases On Collateral Review
In Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014), the Supreme Court held that “at least where use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable under the penalty enhancement provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)…
