| 词条 | Robers v. United States |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Benjamin Robers v. United States |ArgueDate=February 25 |ArgueYear=2014 |DecideDate=May 5 |DecideYear=2014 |FullName=Benjamin Robers v. United States |Docket=12-9012 |ParallelCitations=134 S. Ct. 1854; 188 L. Ed. 2d 885 |Prior=Plaintiff convicted of mortgage fraud, US Dis. Ct.; Petitioner files motion for recalculation of restitution, United States v. Robers, 698 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120914157 937] (7th Cir. 2012). |Subsequent= |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_9012 |Holding=A provision of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 requires property crime offenders to pay “an amount equal to the value of the property” minus “the value of any part of the property that is returned.” In that provision, the phrase “any part of the property” refers to the property that was lost as a result of the crime – in this case, involving a fraudulent loan application, the money lent by the bank. The property is not “returned” until it is sold and the victim receives money from the sale. Here, that means that a sentencing court should reduce the amount of restitution by the amount of money the bank received when it sold the houses that were collateral for the fraudulent loans, rather than by the value of the houses when the bank foreclosed on them. |SCOTUS=2010-2016 |Majority=Breyer | JoinMajority = unanimous |Concurrence=Sotomayor |JoinConcurrence=Ginsburg |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |LawsApplied=Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act (18 U.S.C. §§3663A–366) }}Robers v. United States, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), is a US criminal law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that restitution in cases involving mortgage fraud is determined by the actual money lent not the value of the property.[1] Benjamin Robers had been convicted of mortgage fraud. The District Court had ordered Robers to pay the difference between the amount lent to him and the amount the banks received in selling the houses that had served as collateral for the loans. Robers claimed that the District Court should have instead reduced the restitution amount by the value of the houses on the date the banks took title to them since that was when "part of the property" was "returned." The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate and District courts.[2] References1. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-9012 | title = Robers v. United States - LII Supreme Court Bulletin - LII / Legal Information Institute | accessdate = 2014-08-01 | date = 2014-02-11 }} 2. ^{{cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/12-9012/ | title = Robers v. United States :: 572 U.S. ___ (2014) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center | accessdate = 2014-08-01 }} External links
| case = Robers v. United States, {{ussc|572|___|2014|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/12-9012/ | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-9012{{SCOTUS-case-stub}} 4 : 2014 in United States case law|United States criminal case law|United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court|United States Supreme Court cases |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。