U.S. v. Scalzo

In prosecution in bank fraud and money laundering charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing $679,737.23 restitution order that was based in part on two Credit Union loans that defendant generated, even though defendant asserted that loans were not criminal in nature and that any losses were caused by borrower’s defaults and not his conduct. Defendant had pleaded guilty to Information that included said loans in description of bank fraud scheme, and defendant could not challenge loans’ inclusion in charged scheme at this juncture of proceedings. Moreover, Dist. Ct. specifically found that both loans played significant role in bank fraud scheme by obscuring fraudulent nature of three earlier loans generated by defendant.