U.S. v. Farano

In prosecution of four defendants on mail and wire fraud counts stemming from scheme to purchase HUD properties on false pretenses by recruiting unqualified buyers for said properties and then submitting false loan applications to purchase said properties, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ motions to sever their cases from their co-defendants. Severance would have required necessity to prove on multiple occasions instant complex fraud scheme, and none of instant defendants could establish that they played minor role in scheme in comparison to their co-defendants so as to justify any severance request. Defendants also failed to show how any evidence admitted at joint trial would not have been admitted against them in any severed trial. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in directing defendants to pay restitution to certain banks that had refinanced original loans procured by defendants, where there was no evidence that said banks had relied on misrepresentations made by defendants in original loan applications.