Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cr-00093/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cr-00093-172/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elham Assadi
Defendant
Leonard Bernot
Defendant
Akemi Bottari
Defendant
Joshua Coffman
Defendant
John Corcoran
Defendant
Charles Head
Defendant
Jeremy Michael Head
Defendant
Sarah Mattson
Defendant
Domonic McCarns
Defendant
Anh Nguyen
Defendant
Omar Sandoval
Defendant
Xochitl Sandoval
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff
Eduardo Vanegas
Defendant
Andrew Vu
Defendant
Justin Wiley
Defendant
Kou Yang
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREW VU, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:08-CR-093 KJM 

ORDER 

 In this criminal case, defendant Andrew Vu pled guilty to conspiring to commit 

mail fraud through his participation in a scheme to defraud homeowners in distress and strip them 

of the equity in their homes. Mr. Vu was sentenced on December 19, 2014, with a determination 

of restitution deferred. After multiple continuances, the parties did not reach an agreement 

regarding restitution and the court set a briefing schedule to determine the matter. In its brief, the 

government seeks restitution in the total amount of $6,986,482.45, on behalf of 67 homeowner 

victims. ECF 1338. Mr. Vu has responded generally, pointing to the law imposing the burden of 

establishing restitution on the government, and noting that the government must prove that each 

victim suffered a loss and the loss is attributable to Mr. Vu. ECF 1335. Having carefully 

reviewed the parties’ filings and the government’s exhibits, as explained below, the court 

ORDERS Mr. Vu to pay restitution in the total amount of $6,242,641.51 to a total of 59 

///// 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

victims. To the extent the court does not award restitution, its decision is without prejudice to the 

government’s resubmission of supplemental supporting documentation for the requests denied. 

BACKGROUND 

 Mr. Vu was charged along with fifteen codefendants in February 2008 with 

conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. ECF 

1. He pled guilty on June 15, 2009 to conspiring to commit mail fraud. ECFs 266, 268. In the 

factual basis supporting his plea, which he admitted during the sworn plea colloquy stated what 

happened and what he did, Mr. Vu agreed that he became a member of the mail fraud conspiracy 

led by Charles Head “no later than January 1, 2004,” that he “worked as an employee of Head 

Financial Services (HFS) beginning in October 2003 and continued working for HFS and later, 

possibly a related company of Charles Head’s, Creative Loans, until at least November 2005.” 

ECF 268 at 15:14-20. Mr. Vu also agreed that after November 2005, “and at least until March 

2006, [he] continued to collect ‘rents’ on properties he acquired during his work for defendant 

Charles Head.” Id. at 15:20-22. He admitted that he participated in the scheme to defraud with 

fifteen coconspirators, including Charles Head and Jeremy Michael Head. Id. at 15:9-13.1 

 The factual basis supporting Mr. Vu’s plea does not identify homeowner victims 

of Mr. Vu’s criminal activity by name. Id. at 15-19. It says Mr. Vu served as a loan application 

broker, recruited straw buyers,2 directly solicited homeowner victims as a sales agent, and signed 

off on “multiple” loan applications for six other named codefendants. Id. at 16:6-18, 27-18. The 

factual basis provides “an example” of Mr. Vu’s approach to dealing with homeowners, 

describing activities targeting homeowners in San Pedro, California in “early 2005.” Id. at 18:18-

19:10. The factual basis concludes by stating that “[o]f the equity defendant Vu received from 

the sale of the five homes on which he acted as sales agent, he gave 50% of it to co-conspirator 

 

1

 The other thirteen coconspirators are: Justin Wiley, Joshua Coffman, Elham Assadi, Leonard 

Bernot, Akemi Bottari, John Corcoran, Sarah Mattson, Domonic McCarns, Anh Nguyen, Omar 

Sandoval, Xochitl Sandoval, Eduardo Vanegas, and Kou Yang. ECF 268 at 15. 

2

 The straw buyers here were persons in whose name a home was placed, without ownership of 

the home actually transferring to them. See, e.g., ECF 723 at 5 (jury instruction from trial of 

codefendants). 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

Charles Head. Defendant Vu later resold one of the properties to [another] co-conspirator [] and 

divided the additional equity from the home, . . . with $15,000 [going] to himself.” Id. at 19:11-

16. 

 At Mr. Vu’s sentencing, the court in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range 

found a total loss of between $2.5 and $7 million, and applied an 18 level enhancement as 

contemplated by the parties’ plea agreement under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J). Id. at 10. The court 

applied a 4 level enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) in light of Mr. Vu’s offense having 

involved between 50 and 250 victims, also as the parties had contemplated. Id. In his sentencing 

memorandum, which included objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) sustained 

by the court, Mr. Vu’s counsel noted that Mr. Vu’s offense conduct “took place between 2004-

2006.” ECF 1101 at 3:14. In varying downward to sentencing Mr. Vu to a term of six months, 

the court relied on the description of the conspiracy comprising Mr. Vu’s offense conduct 

contained in the PSR, to which Mr. Vu did not object. See ECF 1080 (sealed PSR, ¶¶ 5-18). In 

particular, the PSR noted that Mr. Vu “participated in multiple aspects of the conspiracy,” and 

described those aspects consistently with the information in the factual basis supporting Mr. Vu’s 

plea. The PSR also noted that the number of victims and the losses those victims suffered were 

the results of “foreseeable acts of coconspirators during the time period that Vu was a participant 

in the scheme.” Id. 

 With its restitution memorandum, the government has provided selected pages of 

documents demonstrating the nature of the conspiracy: Charles Head’s company bulk-purchased 

postcards for mass mailing to distressed homeowners, the company directed co-conspirators to 

work lists of homeowner “leads,” and it provided a script for use in persuading homeowners to 

sign the documents transferring title to their homes, while they were being told they would 

remain on title. ECF 1353-1, Exs. B, C, D; cf. ECF 268 at 17-19 (describing Mr. Vu’s actions as 

including making “materially false promises” regarding homeowners’ remaining on title, among 

other things). Some of the government’s documents, or the same types of documents, were 

admitted at trial of Mr. Vu’s admitted co-conspirators Charles Head and Jeremy Michael Head. 

///// 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

See generally ECF 766 (Exhibit List, Trial of Charles and Jeremy Michael Head). Mr. Vu has not 

objected to the court’s reliance on any of the government’s exhibits, and the court considers them. 

I. APPLICABLE LAW 

 The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) requires the court to order “in 

addition to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution 

to the victim of the offense. . . ,” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), when the offense is one “in which an 

identifiable victim or victims has suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3663A(c)(1)(B). “Victim” is defined to mean “a person directly and proximately harmed as a 

result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered including, in the case 

of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any 

person directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, 

conspiracy, or pattern.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2). 

 In ordering restitution under § 3663A, “in a case involving a conspiracy or 

scheme, restitution may be ordered for all persons harmed by the entire scheme.” United States v. 

Riley, 335 F.3d 919, 931 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Specifically, “[r]estitution is not 

confined to the harm caused by the particular offenses to which [defendant] pleaded guilty. . . . A 

conspirator is vicariously liable for reasonably foreseeable substantive crimes committed by a 

coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Id. (citations omitted).3

 In determining whether an individual victim’s claimed harm should be 

compensated through a restitution award, the court looks to whether “the harm to the victim [is] 

closely related to the scheme, rather than tangentially linked,” Riley, 143 F.3d at 1292, or is 

reasonably foreseeable, United States v. Lotze, 192 F. App’x 598, 600-01 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 

3

 While defendant’s attorney cites to several cases in his brief regarding restitution, the 

government is correct that those cases do not address the court’s obligations in determining 

restitution, but rather focus on sentencing enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines, in 

particular with respect to determining the number of victims for purposes of calculating any 

enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005); 

United States v. Brown, 771 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d 769 

(9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Showalter, 569 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 4 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5

 In resolving any dispute regarding the amount of restitution, the court applies the 

preponderance of the evidence standard. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e); see Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 

1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2012) (“section 3572 [providing for imposition of fine and restitution] is 

modified here by section 3664, which applies specifically to a mandatory restitution order 

imposed under the MVRA . . .”). The burden of demonstrating the amount of loss “sustained by a 

victim as a result of the offense” rests on the government. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e). While defendant 

has the burden of demonstrating his financial resources, and the needs of any dependents, id., Mr. 

Vu here does not argue that he lacks the resources to pay restitution.4

II. ANALYSIS 

 The government’s requests for restitution are all based essentially on a “reasonable 

foreseeability” theory, with all of the victims’ initial losses occurring during the time frame Mr. 

Vu worked with Mr. Head, between January 2004 and March 2006, and all losses resulting from 

the activities of Mr. Vu or his admitted coconspirators. In one instance, Mr. Vu played a direct 

role by recruiting the straw buyer in whose name the financial transaction was effected; the victim 

of this transaction was T.R. ECF 1338 at 20-21. The restitution requests advanced by the 

government fall into three categories: 1) losses based on the equity stripped from a home when an 

unwitting homeowner entered into a first transaction with coconspirators removing the 

homeowner from the title, 2) losses based on the further stripped equity when coconspirators sold 

the home to a third party with a net gain to the coconspirators, and 3) other losses requested by 

homeowners in victim impact statements and related communications with the government’s 

attorneys.5 The court discusses each category below. 

 

4

 Mr. Vu’s PSR shows he had at the time of sentencing a net positive monthly cash flow of 

approximately $1,200, but a negative net worth of approximately $12,000. PSR at 13. It appears 

Mr. Vu will be able to make modest installment payments toward his restitution obligation, 

jointly and severally with codefendants. In any event, the record before the court on the 

government’s request does not require the court to determine whether blood can be squeezed 

from a turnip. 

5

 The victim impact statements referenced only generally by the government, see, e.g., ECF 1338 

at 4:25, include quite a few requests that are not identified in the government’s restitution 

memorandum. On the assumption the government has narrowed its restitution request to cover 

those items it believes are recoverable under the law, the court does not address every request in 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 5 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6

A. Equity Stripped During First Transaction With Coconspirators 

 The court has carefully reviewed the document excerpts supporting this category 

of request, attached as exhibits to the government’s restitution memorandum. In each instance, 

the court has confirmed that the first transaction with coconspirators occurred during the 2004 to 

2006 time frame during which Mr. Vu has admitted being a part of the mail fraud conspiracy led 

by Charles Head. The court also has confirmed that at least one person Mr. Vu admits to 

knowing as a coconspirator or a company controlled by coconspirators was involved in the 

transaction. See ECF 1338, Exs. A through MM, SS, UU. In the T.R. transaction, as noted, Mr. 

Vu himself was involved as a straw buyer recruiter.6 See id., Ex. EE (naming V.T., identified in 

factual basis to plea agreement as Mr. Vu’s girlfriend, as buyer). 

 The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Vu is vicariously 

liable for the reasonably foreseeable losses in this first category, related to 41 homes and as 

claimed by 55 victims, including 14 couples. These losses are identified in Column A in the table 

attached to and incorporated into this order as Exhibit A. 

B. Equity Stripped When Coconspirators Resold Homes 

 The court also has carefully reviewed the documents supporting this category of 

request, also attached as exhibits to the government’s restitution memorandum. The court has 

confirmed that coconspirators resold to third parties 13 homes owned by 17 victims, including 4 

couples, during the 2004 to 2006 time frame of Mr. Vu’s participation in the conspiracy. See

ECF 1338, Exs. A, B, D through J, Q, T, FF, GG (victims R.B./L.B., F.H./D.H., K.J., E.F., M.S., 

R.F., R.L./G.L., L.M., T.W., J.B., Y.S., R.E./E.E., L.V.). 

 The resale of 10 homes of 16 other victims, including 6 couples, occurred after the 

March 2006 date identified generally as the end of the time during which Mr. Vu himself was 

directly involved in the conspiracy. Id., Exs. C, K, M, N, O, R, V, DD, II, KK (victims S.T./B.T., 

P.S., T.C./T.C., M.R./D.R., J.W./D.W., M.C., R.M./K.M., E.S., E.W./L.W., H.M.). Most of this 

 

the victim impact statements. 

6

 T.R. appears in the first row of the table in Exhibit A, as a reflection of her unique status of 

having a more direct connection to Mr. Vu than other victims. 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 6 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7

second group of resales occurred later in the same year Mr. Vu left, between June and December 

2006. Id., Exs. C, K, M, N, O, V, DD, II. Two occurred in 2008, one in April of that year and 

one in October. Id., Exs. R (M.C.), KK (H.M.). In every instance of resale of a home, whenever 

resale occurred, either a person Mr. Vu knew was a coconspirator or a straw buyer used by a 

coconspirator was involved in the transaction, or the escrow company used by the Charles Head 

operation handled the transaction. See generally id. (key documents identifying straw buyers 

Marissa Page, Laurie Coffman, Adam Coffman, Brendan Parker, Shawn Willis, Eduardo 

Vanegas, Jason Marshall, Juan Urena, Abraham Urena, Ryan Wiley, Maria Sandoval); see also

ECF No. 769 at 27-29 (trial testimony of Omar Sandoval confirming Abraham Urena, Juan 

Urena, and Eduardo Vanegas as straw buyers); ECF No. 809 at 111-1127 (Adam Coffman); ECF 

No. 808 at 58-61 (Jason Marshall); ECF No. 807 at 93-130 (Castlehead Escrow dealings with 

Charles Head operation between 2001 and 2005). 

 The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Vu is vicariously 

liable for the reasonably foreseeable losses in this second category as well, including for the 

equity amounts lost upon resale of the victim’s former homes after March 2006. Riley, 335 F.3d 

at 932 (conspirator “vicariously liable for reasonably foreseeable substantive crimes committed 

by a coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy.”). The Ninth Circuit has approved restitution 

for losses “at least one step removed from the offense conduct itself,” clarifying that a 

“defendant's conduct need not be the sole cause of the loss, but any subsequent action that 

contributes to the loss, such as an intervening cause, must be directly related to the defendant's 

conduct.” United States v. Gamma Tech Indus., Inc., 265 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Ultimately, “[t]he causal chain may not extend so far, in terms of the facts or the time span, as to 

become unreasonable.” Id.; see also United States v. VanBeenen, 872 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1088 (D. 

Or. 2012) (same; secondary loan purchasers can be victims for purposes of MVRA). Looking to 

the causal chain and reasonableness here, all of the victims covered by the government’s request 

became involved in the scheme during Vu's admitted involvement from January 2004 until March 

 

7

 Where a page bears two different page numbers, the court cites to the page number assigned by 

its electronic filing system. 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 7 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8

2006. The subsequent additional losses in equity were directly caused by Vu’s co-conspirators 

who continued to carry out the conspiracy after he left, following the same script and using the 

same procedures. Most of the subsequent resales to third parties were within months of Vu’s 

departure. The latest resales in April and October 2008, were approximately two and two-and- ahalf years later respectively. This second series of equity-stripping transactions led to reasonable 

and foreseeable losses, the types of losses reasonably expected from the conspiracy that was the 

Head equity-stripping scheme. See United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 338, 342 (4th Cir. 

2003) (where defendant convicted of conspiracy, holding him responsible for loss caused by 

entire conspiracy, not just loss incurred during two month time period when he was involved, is 

consistent with legislative intent to fully compensate crime victims); cf. United States v. Laney, 

189 F.3d 954, 967 (9th Cir. 1999) (restitution award may include future counseling for victim as a 

direct and foreseeable cause of defendant’s unlawful behavior); United States v. Rice, 38 F.3d 

1536, 1545 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming restitution order for losses suffered as a result of bribes 

made a year after end of the conspiracy). 

 The court awards restitution for the losses in this second category of equity 

stripping, as identified in Column B in Exhibit A. 

C. Other Losses 

 In making requests for payments to cover other losses, the government seeks 

restitution on behalf of victims for the following types of expenses: legal and investigatory fees 

associated with fighting the loss of their homes, monthly payments sent to coconspirators with the 

understanding the payments were helping to ensure the victims could retain their homes, 

estimated (as opposed to the government’s documented) losses in equity, penalties and costs 

associated with other loans reportedly related to the home loans affected by the scheme to 

defraud, lost savings and retirement funds tapped to cover expenses resulting from the loss of 

home equity, moving and storage expenses, in one case the net unanticipated cost of repurchasing 

a home, and medical expenses attributed to the stress of fighting to reclaim a home. Except 

where noted, these requests generally are supported by victim impact statements filed with the 

court as attachments to sealed PSRs or filed independently by the victim and sealed. See 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 8 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9

generally, e.g., ECFs 894, 918-4, 933, 958-1 through 958-7, 965-5 through 965-11, 1021-1 at 53, 

59. 

 A restitution award may be based on victim impact statements or victim affidavits 

that contain sufficient detail. See, e.g., United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 557 (9th Cir. 

2008) (“victim affidavits will generally provide sufficient, reliable evidence to support a 

restitution order); United States v. Lindholm, 24 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming 

restitution based on amounts provided in victim impact statement portion of PSR). At the same 

time, where as here the defense points however generally to the government’s burden to establish 

loss and causation, summary victim impact statements without itemization of costs or receipts to 

support specific findings will not support an award. Waknine, 543 F.3d at 556-57 (victim 

statements sufficient only if not “too summary” or “too conclusory”; reversing award where 

statements did not itemize and fully explain costs sought); see also United States v. Newcomb, 

No. 2:11-CR-00172 MCE, 2012 WL 3260473, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012) (declining to award 

restitution where victim impact statement did not “explain how [] losses were directly 

attributable” to fraud). With these standards in mind the court addresses each category of other 

losses below. 

1. Legal and investigatory fees 

 The Ninth Circuit has affirmed restitution orders for attorneys' fees where the fees 

“were directly, not tangentially, related to” the offense conduct. For example, in Lotze, 192 F. 

App’x at 598, the court affirmed the district court’s finding that civil litigation seeking to get toy 

cars that presented a choking hazard off the street was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of 

defendant’s fraud in contracting to destroy the cars but instead reselling them. In United States v. 

DeGeorge, 380 F.3d 1203, 1221 (9th Cir. 2004), the court affirmed a restitution order awarding 

an insurance company's attorneys' fees incurred in litigating a civil action over rescission of an 

insurance contract, where the defendant had attempted to collect on the insurance policy after 

illegally sinking the insured boat and the defendant’s conviction was based on his perjury and 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 9 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10

other actions in the civil suit.8 Similarly, in United States v. Cummings, 281 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 

2002), the court affirmed a restitution award of attorneys' fees incurred by a mother who in 

separate civil proceedings sought to regain custody of her children. Her fees were “a direct and 

foreseeable result” of the former husband’s criminal conduct of kidnapping their children, as 

“[t]here would have been no need to engage in civil proceedings to recover the children if [the 

husband] had not unlawfully taken them to Germany.” Id. at 1052-53. 

 In contrast, in United States v. Barany, the Circuit found the fees expended in 

defending a “wholly separate” civil suit were insufficiently related to the defendant’s criminal 

offenses. 884 F.2d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir. 1989) (remanding for reconsideration, including because 

district court relied solely on probation officer’s report on restitution owing). The defendant in 

Barany was convicted of mail fraud based on the filing of a fraudulent insurance claim. The 

insurer initially paid on defendant’s claim, but then declined further payments; when defendant 

sued for breach of contract and bad faith, the insurer defended against the claims. Id. The Circuit 

observed that the question of fees was appropriately left to the court presiding over the separate 

trial, and to award them in the form of restitution would run counter to the American rule 

whereby litigants typically pay their own fees. Id. Moreover, the civil action was still pending in 

state court, with its outcome unresolved. Id. 

 Here, victims S.T. and B.T., R.C. and B.C., H.P., R.W. and J.W. and W.A. have 

requested legal fees, and in the case of R.W. and J.W., private investigator fees as well. ECFs 

1338 at 4, 894-2 at 131-144 (S.T./B.T.); ECFs 1338 at 10, 1080-4 at 2-5 (R.C./B.C.); ECFs 1338 

///// 

///// 

 

8 DeGeorge, as well as Cummings and Barany cited below, all were decided under the Victim and 

Witness Protection Act (VWPA), appearing at 18 U.S.C. § 3663. The MVRA, passed in 1996, 

added a new requirement making restitution mandatory in certain cases, including Mr. Vu’s. The 

VWPA requires courts to consider the economic circumstances of the defendant prior to ordering 

restitution, and the granting of restitution is discretionary, not mandatory. “With these 

exceptions, the two statutes are identical in all important respects, and courts interpreting the 

MVRA may look to and rely on cases interpreting the VWPA as precedent.” United States v. 

Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 10 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

11

at 26, 894-2 at 110-111 (H.P.); ECFs 1338 at 28-29, 894-2 at 202-204 (R.W./J.W.); ECFs 1338 at 

30, 894-2 at 2-8.9 

 The only document the court has located as supporting a request for fees by S.T. 

and B.T. is the first page of what appears to be an application for a temporary restraining order 

prepared for filing in the Fresno County Superior Court. ECF 1338, Ex. C at 7 (characterizing 

first page of application as “ex parte application for temporary restraining order and order to show 

cause regarding the preliminary injunction” noticed on July 12, 2005). In S.T.’s victim impact 

statement, which the court has located in the record of the case, she seeks fees for a real estate 

attorney she says “failed” her and her husband, and for a divorce attorney she hired after she says 

the loss of the family home led to their marital dissolution. See ECF 894-2 at 130-144 (including 

duplicate pages). While S.T. avers she spent $15,000 on the real estate attorney, who apparently 

filed the TRO application, and $9,000 on the divorce attorney, she provides no documentation to 

support these amounts or the details or outcomes of the legal actions they handled. Id. at 133. 

 Victim W.A. seeks legal fees paid to two different attorneys, totaling $75,000 “and 

adding.” ECF 1338 at 30; see also ECF 894-2 at 2. W.A. does not describe the litigation for 

which the attorneys have been retained, whether the litigation is ongoing, or the nature of the 

claims. 

 The requests for fees the government advances on behalf of R.C. and B.C., H.P., 

and R.W. and J.W. are supported by no more than the requests on behalf of S.T. and W.A. See

ECF 1338 at 10, 26, 28-29. 

 While the court does not doubt any victim’s account generally, it is the 

government that has the burden of making the case for restitution to the court, a burden it has not 

met with respect to the requests for legal fees. United States v. Baydovskiy, No. CR090084, 2010 

WL 2542019, at *5 (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2010) (“The government’s description of its own 

 

9

 To the extent the court relies on sealed documents other than the PSR that can be redacted to 

protect personal identifying information while disclosing the substantive details supporting the 

court’s conclusion, it directs the government below to file redacted copies of those documents on 

the public docket. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

2006) (noting the longstanding strong presumption of public access to judicial records). 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 11 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12

review of the record, of course, does not create a record before this Court.”). Specifically, the 

government has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the legal fees requested by 

any victim were reasonably foreseeable or resulted from Mr. Vu’s criminal conduct. Waknine, 

543 F.3d at 558–59 (“court may only award restitution of travel expenses and investigation costs, 

including attorneys' fees, if the government provides sufficiently detailed evidence to demonstrate 

by a preponderance of the evidence” they were “necessarily incurred” and “reasonably 

necessary”). The requests for these fees are denied without prejudice to the government’s 

resubmission of properly supported requests, if it is able to present them. 

2. Monthly payments to coconspirators; estimated loss of equity 

 Victims J.H. and E.S. seek restitution for monthly payments they made to 

coconspirators to stay in their homes during the time they thought they were being rescued from 

foreclosure. ECF 1338 at 14, 20; ECFs 918-4 at 153 (E.S.), 1021-1 at 54-56 (J.H.). R.W. and 

J.W. seek a lump sum amount they say they paid to coconspirator Charles Head to remain in their 

home. Id. at 28-29; ECF 894-2 at 202-204. Victim R.L. seeks a lump sum in the amount she 

says coconspirators “kept in escrow”; the government represents her property was one that 

coconspirators “were tracking” in the records of homes they controlled. ECF 1338 at 29-30; ECF 

894-2 at 90. Victim W.A. seeks amounts for “lost equity” and “equity second,” with the specific 

amounts sought included in his sworn victim impact statement. ECF 1338 at 30; ECF 894-2 at 2-

8. Victim A.L. seeks $87,211.27 in lost equity evinced by a document on which is recorded by 

hand a wire transfer for this amount related to the equity-stripping transaction affecting A.L.’s 

home. ECF 1338 at 28 & Ex. SS-3. Victim L.A. seeks $246,319.71 in lost equity, supported by a 

bank statement showing the wiring of that amount to an account managed by a coconspirator. Id. 

at 29 & Ex. UU-3. Victim T.R., in her victim impact statement, states her loss of equity as 

$93,000. ///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 12 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13

ECF 918-4 at 143-144.10 The government’s brief and supporting document, ECF No. 1338, Ex. 

EE, show T.R. incurred a net loss of equity of $73,492.08.11 

 These victims’ claimed losses of equity and lump sum or monthly payments to Mr. 

Vu’s coconspirators are consistent with his admitted offense conduct. See Plea Agreement at 17-

19, ECF No. 269 (conspiracy involved requiring victims to make monthly “rent” payments they 

were told would improve their credit, but had the effect of “stripping equity” from their homes). 

With its restitution memorandum, the government has provided financial documents showing 

payments and wire transactions related to property in the names of the victims identified above. 

The court finds these losses supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and a foreseeable 

result of Mr. Vu’s conduct. Cf. United States v. Meksian, 170 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(“A restitution order is authorized if the defendant created the circumstances under which the 

harm or loss occurred.”) (quoting United States v. Spinney, 795 F.2d 1410, 1417 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

 Another set of victims seeks restitution for lost equity, but without the support 

required to support a restitution award. One victim, W.D., makes a request for a lump sum of 

$130,000, which he says includes lost equity as well as other losses. He provides no breakdown 

or detail to allow an award of restitution at this time. See ECF 894-2 at 18. B.L. and T.L seek 

$47,000, the difference between the price they say coconspirators told them they would pay to 

repurchase their home and what they actually paid on repurchase. Id. at 26.12 C.J. and M.J. 

request $225,000, a lump sum for lost equity and moving expenses. ECF 1338 at 27. They also 

do not provide any breakdown or detail to support this request. ECF 894-2 at 79-80. G.W. and 

R.W. seek restitution for an estimated amount of lost equity, which the government merely says is 

 

10 The government’s request, ECF No. 1338 at 20, states T.R.’s victim impact statement losses as 

$73,492.08 in equity and “additional losses due to moving expenses,” less $10,000 reimbursed by 

a third party. However, her victim impact statement does not mention any moving expenses. 

ECF No. 918-4 at 143-44. 

11 The government’s brief provides the incorrect total of $83,000 in the heading of its discussion 

of T.R.’s request. ECF 1338 at 20. 

12 Without a pinpoint cite, the court has not located a victim impact statement for B.L. and T.L. 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 13 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

14

“consistent” with the amount of equity lost by other victims in their shoes. ECF 1338 at 27-28.13 

The court does not grant these requests at this time. 

3. Miscellaneous Requests 

 Certain victims have made restitution requests to cover a range of other kinds of 

costs or losses. These include: loss of a boat, car and 401(k) funds by R.C. and B.C., ECF 1338 

at 10, ECF 894-2 at 15, ECF No. 1080-4 at 3; loss of a car as a result of a higher mortgage cost by 

E.S., ECF 1338 at 20, ECF No. 918-4 at 153-154; prepayment penalties, interest and fees 

associated with previous loans, and lost savings by W.D., ECF 1338 at 25, ECF 894-2 at 18; 

appraiser’s fees, moving expenses, storage rental, security deposits and rent by H.P., ECF No. 

1338 at 26, ECF 894-2 at 110-111; moving expenses and lost annual leave and retirement funds 

by C.J. and M.J., ECF 1338 at 27, ECF 894-2 at 79; medical expenses by R.W. and J.W., ECF 

1338 at 28-29, ECF 894-2 at 202-204; and home repairs by W.A., ECF 1338 at 30, ECF 894-2 at 

4. 

 Here again, while the court does not doubt these victims’ accounts generally of the 

ripple effects of the criminal conspiracy in which Mr. Vu was involved, the government has not 

shown by a preponderance of the evidence that these other costs were foreseeable and sufficiently 

closely related to Mr. Vu’s central offense conduct to support an award of restitution under the 

applicable law. At most, the amounts sought are supported only by summary victim impact 

statements without supporting documentation. Cf. Waknine, 543 F.3d at 557 (district court erred 

“by relying exclusively on the one-page loss summaries provided by the victims and in not 

requiring more detailed explanations of the losses each victim suffered”). These requests also are 

denied without prejudice to resubmission if a better record can be provided. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, the court awards restitution in the total amount of 

$6,242,641.51, with identified victims paid the individual amounts shown in Column F of the 

attached Exhibit A. 

 

13 Without a pinpoint cite, the court has not located a victim impact statement for G.W. and R.W. 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 14 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

15

 The government is directed to file, within fourteen days, copies of the pages of the 

following sealed documents relied on by the court, redacting all personal identifying information: 

ECFs 894-1, 894-2, 918-4, 1021-1, 1080-4. 

 The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue an amended judgment reflecting this 

order, with Mr. Vu paying restitution jointly and severally with other codefendants convicted in 

this case. 

DATED: August 3, 2015. 

Case 2:08-cr-00093-KJM Document 1405 Filed 08/04/15 Page 15 of 15