01-1672 U.S. v. Rumsavich

Listen to this article

“We agree with the court’s decision to enhance Rumsavich’s sentence because he deliberately, systematically, and purposefully targeted Paine and a number of other widowed, aged, unsophisticated and unwary investors as victims in his high-risk business ventures and then proceeded to systematically and deliberately defraud them. As we explained in Part I, Rumsavich began by mailing brochures to residents living in areas inhabited with a large number of unsophisticated elderly retirees. Through the use of carefully crafted questionnaires he presented to the retirees who had on prior occasions received the same flier and thereafter attended his investment seminars in the city and suburbs of Chicago, Rumsavich was able to further narrow down and identify even more naïve, gullible individuals who: (1) had an unusual need for sound advice from a financial planner; and (2) lacked more than a basic understanding of investment strategies and theories. It was only towards this group of people-those financially inexperienced elderly people who needed Rumsavich’s help and were particularly likely to rely upon his advice to their detriment-that Rumsavich targeted his fraudulent investment schemes.

“We are convinced that an unscrupulous person like this-who methodically schemes and plans to separate out those elderly and inexperienced investors in dire need of prudent investment planning and thereafter proceeds to cheat them out of their life savings-is eligible for a ‘vulnerable victim’ enhancement no less than a huckster who peddles ‘an ineffective cancer cure’ to those unfortunate people dying of cancer. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 appl’n n.2. We agree with the trial judge’s determination that Rumsavich’s victims were vulnerable because they had ‘a lower than average ability to protect themselves’ against his fraudulent investment programs, United States v. Grimes, 173 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 1999), due to a combination of their age, severe physical or emotional difficulties, widowhood, pronounced need for sound and truthful investment advice, limited incomes, and frequently combined with a demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding of financial ventures.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Hibbler, J., Coffey, J.