Restitution For Bank of America In Mortgage Fraud Prosecution Improper

Bank of America is not entitled to restitution as a “victim” under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act for bad loans issued during the 2007-2008 housing crash, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held. See United States v. Litos, 847 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2017). Three defendants were ordered to pay $893,015 in restitution to Bank of America for their involvement in a bank fraud prosecution surrounding fraudulent mortgage applications. In spite of the bank’s reckless conduct surrounding the loans, the court-ordered restitution.

The Seventh Circuit reversed.

“We are mindful that the federal criminal code requires ‘mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes, 18 U.S.C.  3663A (the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996, usually referred to as the MVRA), including fraud, see  3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii), but only for ‘an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a victim of the offense.’ 3663A(b)(1). That doesn't seem to describe the loss suffered by Bank of America as a result of its improvident loans, especially when we consider its complicity in the loss—its reckless decision to make the loans without verifying the solvency of the would-be borrowers, despite the palpable risk involved in, for example, providing mortgage loans to a person who applies for six mortgages in ten days.”

The court continued that:

“Had the bank done any investigating at all, rather than accept at face value obviously questionable claims that the mortgagors were solvent, it would have discovered that none of them could make the required down payments, let alone pay back the mortgages. These people were just fronts for the defendants, who made the down payments required by the bank, pocketed the mortgage loans (which were of course much larger than the down payments) that the bank made, and left it to the nominal mortgagors to default since they hadn't the resources to repay the bank. All this was transparent.”

Accordingly, the court concluded that Bank of America was not a “victim” for restitution purposes.

The court of appeals, however, did encourage the district court to assess on remand whether the defendants should be fined in an equal amount to the restitution that had been previously ordered.

The case was remanded for resentencing.

About Brandon Sample

Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon’s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

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…

Read More about Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions

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…

Read More about Supervised Release Cannot Be Revoked After Supervision Term Ends

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)…

Read More about Burrage Applies Retroactively To Cases On Collateral Review