Sentencing — vulnerable victim enhancement

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — vulnerable victim enhancement

Where the defendants were selective regarding which customers they provided honest services, and which ones they stole from, the district court properly applied enhancements for targeting vulnerable victims.

“We find that there was sufficient testimony from the six victims at trial to support the district court’s finding that the victims qualified as vulnerable. Harold Ray, for instance, was a fifty-nine year old retiree dependent upon Social Security disability payments after suffering a stroke. There was also sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that the appellants knew of their victims’ vulnerabilities. Kelliher’s testimony was direct evidence that the appellants targeted elderly and unsophisticated people for their refinancing scheme. Additionally, the appellants did not take advantage of all their customers, only the ones willing to refinance their homes. See United States v. Christiansen, 594 F.3d 571, 576 (7th Cir. 2010) (offering services selectively instead of to the general public at-large was evidence that a defendant knew her victims were susceptible to fraud). The appellants selectively targeted their victims, and the district court did not err in its application of this enhancement.”

Affirmed.

12-3631 & 12-3670 U.S. v. Sullivan

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Bauer, J.