10-2797 U.S. v. Landwer

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Sophisticated means enhancement

Where a fraud lasted for seven years, the court properly enhanced the sentence for using sophisticated means to perpetrate the scheme.

“Landwer’s conduct, however, falls within our interpretation of sophisticated means. Application of the adjustment ‘is proper when the conduct shows a greater level of planning or concealment than a typical fraud of its kind.’ United States v. Knox, 624 F.3d 865, 871 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see United States v. Robinson, 538 F.3d 605, 607-08 (7th Cir. 2008) (upholding adjustment when defendant covered up counterfeiting scheme by putting his phone number on fake checks to vouch for their authenticity); United States v. Wright, 496 F.3d 371, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2007) (upholding adjustment when defendant inflated value of buyers’ assets to defraud lenders); United States v. Halloran, 415 F.3d 940, 945 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding adjustment when defendant forged numerous documents and notary stamps). Here the district court characterized Landwer’s fraud in avoiding detection as ‘significantly more elaborate than usual.’ And that finding is not clearly erroneous; Landwer, under the guise of operating a financial firm, oversaw for seven years an elaborate scheme in which he created phony documents to conceal fraudulent transactions from victims and authorities, used complex real-estate instruments to scam victims out of property, liquidated clients’ investment funds for his own use and channeled the proceeds in a manner that covered up his theft, and sent trumped-up letters to clients falsely reassuring them that their investments were safe.”

Affirmed.

10-2797 U.S. v. Landwer

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Dow, J., Per Curiam.

Full Text