Court Orders Restitution Based on the Difference Between the Amount Loaned to the Defendant and the Amounts the Banks Received After Selling the Houses

In Robers v. United States, the defendant, Robers, was convicted of the federal crime of submitting fraudulent mortgage loan applications to two banks.  The court ordered him to pay restitution in the amount, which constituted the difference between the amount that he borrowed and the amounts the banks received after selling the properties that served as collateral for the loans.  Robers appealed the decision claiming that the restitution should be based on the value of the homes as of the date that the banks took title because they were part of the property return.  The United States Supreme Court upheld the decision and the restitution.  See Robers v. United States.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.