Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 DECEMBER 2022

3rd Circ. 'Loss' Definition Is A Win For White Collar Defendants

Sheppard
Sheppard
Contributor
Sheppard

Sheppard

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more...

View firm profile
Explore more from Sheppard

On Nov. 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit published a potential watershed decision in U.S. v. Banks,1 holding for the first time that the definition of "loss" in fraud cases...

United StatesCriminal Law

On Nov. 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit published a potential watershed decision in U.S. v. Banks,1 holding for the first time that the definition of "loss" in fraud cases does not include "intended" loss under the sentencing guidelines.

Thus, the government may only use evidence of "actual" loss to establish an appropriate punishment for fraudulent conduct — a huge win for defendants that could have massive ramifications in white collar cases going forward.

Prosecutors exploit "intended loss" in order to manufacture higher sentences in white collar matters, a tool that has been greatly questioned and diminished. The Banks decision is a fatal blow to this unwieldy analysis, which may result in fewer white collar matters and smaller sentences.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from