U.S. v. Stein

In prosecution on wire fraud charge arising out of check-kiting scheme defendant used to generate working capital for his legitimate businesses, Dist. Ct. did not err in entering restitution order that totaled more than $1 million, even though defendant argued that $440,000 of said loss was generated at check cashing exchange, where owner of said exchange was complicit in scheme. Record showed that instant exchange suffered $440,000 in losses when defendant’s checks were not honored by defendant’s banks, and although defendant may have civil action against owner for contribution arising out of owner’s facilitating conduct, said fact did not relieve defendant of his obligation to compensate his victims.