U.S. v. Navarrette

In prosecution on bank fraud charges stemming from scheme in which defendant overcharged bank for installing and maintaining security devices, remand was required for reconsideration of Dist. Ct.'s imposition of $16,241,202 restitution order, where Dist. Ct. based said order on defendant's gain from scheme rather than loss attributed to victim. On remand, Dist. Ct. may consider price of replacement contract and compare said price to what victim paid to defendant for comparable services. Defendant, though, may rebut said loss through evidence indicating that quality or quantity of services rendered by defendant were superior to services rendered under replacement contract.