Monday, February 13, 2012

U.S. v. Yeung, No. 10-10381 (2-13-12) (Ikuta with Graber and Quist, D.J.).

To the point: courts must explain why they order certain restitution amounts to victims under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996. In this case, involving mortgage fraud and "straw purchases" of homes and securities, the court ordered restitution to victim banks without really taking into account loss, or the value of the collateral property once recovered. Although the court faced complexities in various deals, the court should have justified its decisions as to two victims. The matter is remanded for recalculation and explanation.


Post a Comment

<< Home