Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Legal News / White Collar Case Analysis

White Collar Case Analysis

The decision is significant in two respects: reemphasizing that the court will not accept probation-only sentences for large-scale white collar criminals; and adding to the list of factors that are not permissible grounds for a below-guideline sentence.

In U.S. v. Wallace, 458 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2006), the district court imposed a probation-only sentence, even though the guideline range was 24-30 months imprisonment, and the amount of intended loss from a wire fraud scheme exceeded $400,000. The court of appeals reversed.

The court also cited several decisions from other circuits, vacating probation-only sentences for white collar criminals.

Several months later, in U.S. v. Repking, 467 F.3d 1091 (7th Cir. 2006), the court vacated the one-day prison sentence that a white collar criminal received for a bank fraud involving from $600,000 to $1 million in losses.

In the two cases, the court held that a variety of considerations were impermissible grounds for a below-guideline sentence: charitable works; pre-charge payment of restitution; and that actual loss was far less than intended loss.

To this list can now be added the following: the incurring of significant attorney fees in defending against the charge; misconduct (alleged or otherwise) on the part of the prosecution; protracted prosecution; and the defendant’s “ineptness as a businessman.”


Related Article

Probation sentence vacated


In this case, the court found there was not even an arguable violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), prompting the court to dismiss the claim as “hover[ing] on the border of cloud-cuckooland.”

However, even if there had been a real violation of Brady, the opinion precludes leniency for the defendant, by opining, “as for governmental misconduct, nothing in section 3553(a) suggests that punishing the government is a proper goal of sentencing; two wrongs don’t make a right.”

The court’s holding that incurring extensive attorney fees is not a permissible ground for a below-guideline sentence is also consistent with the only other courts that have considered the issue.

In U.S. v. Chastain, 84 F.3d 321, 323-24 (9th Cir. 1996), a pre-Booker case, the Ninth Circuit held that this ground did not justify a reduction in the guideline range. More recently, in U.S. v. Vigil, — F.Supp.2d —, 2007 WL654559 (D.N.M., Feb. 13, 2007), the court also held that the defendant’s incurring several hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees does not justify a reduced sentence.

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *