Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Not at all to defend, but just on the question of dollar loss, in any given case I would think it's difficult to truly know the effect of the shill bids, because unless they were placed at the very end, you don't know what the course of legitimate bidding would have been but for the shills. Just by way of example, suppose the high bidder wins for 1000, but if you take out the shills his bid would have been 800. You can't really say that's a loss of 200, because if the high bid had showed at 800, not 1000, someone else might have bid 900.
Indeed, the government did not pursue restitution, perhaps because of difficulties of calculation.
|
But "someone else" didn't have the opportunity, or the ability, to bid at that level because a fraudulent bid took that ability away. Mastro, et al., created whatever uncertainty exists regarding the number. So, IMO, they get to eat it.
Civilly, that would not not be a defense at all, at least not where I practice. I encounter similar claims pretty frequently. Once the fact of damage is shown, if the defendant's actions created the uncertainty as to the amount, the jury decides what the number is based upon the best evidence available. The "speculation" defense goes away. The bad guys don't get to benefit from the uncertainty they created by their own fraud. I don't know how it works in the criminal arena, but that is an issue -- probably one of the few -- that I have never lost either in state or federal court, in 32 years of practice.