Robers v. United States

Benjamin Robers v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 25, 2014 Decided May 5, 2014
Full case name	Benjamin Robers v. United States
Docket nos.	12-9012
Prior history	Plaintiff convicted of mortgage fraud, US Dis. Ct.; Petitioner files motion for recalculation of restitution, 7th Ckt. Ct.
Subsequent history	9th Ckt. Ct. affirmed
Argument	Oral argument
Holding
A provision of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 requires property crime offenders to pay “an amount equal to the value of the property” minus “the value of any part of the property that is returned.” In that provision, the phrase “any part of the property” refers to the property that was lost as a result of the crime – in this case, involving a fraudulent loan application, the money lent by the bank. The property is not “returned” until it is sold and the victim receives money from the sale. Here, that means that a sentencing court should reduce the amount of restitution by the amount of money the bank received when it sold the houses that were collateral for the fraudulent loans, rather than by the value of the houses when the bank foreclosed on them.
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Breyer, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concurrence	Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act (18 U.S.C. §§3663A–366)

Robers v. United States No. 12-9012, 572 U.S. 310 (2014) is a US criminal law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that restitution in cases involving mortgage fraud is determined by the actual money lent not the value of the property.^[1] Benjamin Robers had been convicted of mortgage fraud. The District Court had ordered Robers to pay the difference between the amount lent to him and the amount the banks received in selling the houses that had served as collateral for the loans. Robers claimed that the District Court should have instead reduced the restitution amount by the value of the houses on the date the banks took title to them since that was when "part of the property" was "returned." The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate and District courts.^[2]

References

1. "Robers v. United States - LII Supreme Court Bulletin - LII / Legal Information Institute". Retrieved 2014-08-01.
2. "Robers v. United States :: 572 U.S. ___ (2014) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center". Retrieved 2014-08-01.