Robers v. United States

Background

A man acting as a straw buyer submitted fraudulent loan applications to two banks, which lent about $470,000 and took mortgages on two houses as collateral. When he defaulted, the banks foreclosed, took title in 2006, and later sold the houses for about $120,000 and $160,000. The defendant was convicted and the district court ordered roughly $220,000 in restitution, the loan amount minus the money the banks obtained from selling the homes.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the statute requires reducing restitution by the value of collateral when the victim received it or by the cash actually obtained from selling that collateral. Reading the statute's repeated use of "property" naturally as the thing lost—here, the money—the Court concluded that "any part of the property that is returned" means money returned, not the collateral itself. The Court emphasized ease of administering this rule and rejected arguments that market declines break the link to the offender in ordinary cases.

Real world impact

The decision means courts should subtract the cash victims actually get from selling collateral when calculating restitution, not the collateral's earlier value. Sentencing judges can use other statutory options to avoid unfair results, such as postponing restitution for a short time or specifying in-kind payments. Lenders who deliberately choose to hold collateral rather than promptly sell may bear post-receipt losses.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, agreed with the judgment but stressed that if a victim intentionally holds collateral and delays sale, the victim bears resulting market losses; the defendant would need evidence to show unfair delay.