United States v. Marco Luis

Good Law
765 F.3d 1061·2014 WL 4236390·2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16710
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 28, 201413-50020California2,648 words

Opinion

Opinion

Smith, J.

The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”) requires a district court to order restitution when (1) a defendant commits an “offense against property,” and (2) there is a “victim.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(l), (c)(1). We affirm the district court’s determination that both requirements were met in this case.

Marco Luis pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to engage in monetary transactions in property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 (h) and 1957 for his part in the purchase of two parcels of real property with fraudulently obtained loans. Because Luis’s crimes infringed on JP Morgan Chase’s (“Chase”) and CitiGroup’s (“Citi”) property interests, they were offenses against property. See United States v. Stephens, 374 F.3d 867, 871 (9th Cir.2004). Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Chase was a victim, because the fraudulent nature of the loans was concealed at the time Chase purchased them. See United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594, 603 (9th Cir.2012), overruled in part on other grounds by Robers v. United States, — U.S.—, 134 S.Ct. 1854 , 188 L.Ed.2d 885 (2014).

We affirm the calculation of restitution owed to Citi, because…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.