Vulnerable Victim Sentencing Enhancement for Grandparent Fraud Schemes

Introduction

In United States v. Tarek Bouanane and Roderick Feurtado (3d Cir. Apr. 14, 2025), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the application of sentencing enhancements under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) for defendants who preyed on elderly victims in a “grandparent scam.” The appellants, Bouanane and Feurtado, were convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud after orchestrating and executing a scheme that deceived elderly Pittsburgh residents into posting large sums of cash bonds for nonexistent legal emergencies involving their grandchildren. On appeal, they challenged (1) a two-level upward adjustment for “vulnerable victims” under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1), (2) the district court’s refusal to grant downward adjustments for minor or minimal participation under § 3B1.2 and for zero–point offenders under § 4C1.1, and (3) in Feurtado’s case, the substantive reasonableness of an upward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Third Circuit affirmed in all respects, thereby clarifying how “vulnerable victim” enhancements apply in the context of relational frauds that exploit familial ties.

Summary of the Judgment

The appeals court held that:

The district court correctly applied the U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) “vulnerable victim” adjustment, finding that (a) the victims were elderly and thus particularly susceptible to the grandparent scam, (b) the defendants knew or should have known of this susceptibility, and (c) the vulnerability directly facilitated the fraud.
There was no clear error in the district court’s refusal to grant Bouanane a role‐based downward adjustment under § 3B1.2 or a zero–point offender reduction under § 4C1.1.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance—beyond the advisory Guidelines range—on Feurtado’s sentence, given the scheme’s gravity, his managerial role, the need for specific and general deterrence, and his history of nonviolent scams.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Third Circuit’s opinion draws extensively on prior decisions interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines:

United States v. Adeolu, 836 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2016) – Outlining de novo review of legal interpretations of the Guidelines and clear‐error review of application.
United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2002) – Defining “vulnerable victim” and emphasizing that knowledge of susceptibility, not intent, triggers § 3A1.1.
United States v. McCall, 174 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1998) – Focusing on an individual victim’s inability to avoid the crime.
United States v. Seligsohn, 981 F.2d 1418 (3d Cir. 1992) – Recognizing age as a factor in vulnerability analysis.
United States v. Astorri, 923 F.2d 1052 (3d Cir. 1991) – Affirming § 3A1.1 where a defendant exploited close family relationships for fraud.
United States v. Womack, 55 F.4th 219 (3d Cir. 2022) and United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 811 (3d Cir. 2001) – Clarifying the multi‐factor test for minor or minimal participant adjustments under § 3B1.2.
United States v. Isaza‐Zapata, 148 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1998) – Highlighting the district court’s broad discretion in role‐reduction rulings.
United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc), United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc), United States v. Seibert, 971 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2020), and United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2007) – Establishing the framework for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences under § 3553(a).

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning on the vulnerable victim adjustment followed the three-prong test from Adeolu:

Victims’ Particular Susceptibility: The district court found that elderly grandparents, due to age and familial affection, were especially vulnerable to the fraud scheme—an observation supported by Seligsohn and Astorri.
Knowledge by Defendants: Both Bouanane and Feurtado knew, or should have known, that the scheme depended on victims’ emotional tie to grandchildren. Trial testimony confirmed their awareness of the scam’s reliance on that vulnerability.
Nexus to Success: The use of familial impersonation directly facilitated extraction of cash bonds, establishing the required causal nexus under Zats.

On role adjustments under § 3B1.2, the court applied the Brown/Womack factors and found Bouanane’s decision-making about when and how to collect cash—and his share of the proceeds—placed him above “minor” or “minimal” participation. Under § 4C1.1, the court rejected a zero-point offender reduction because the vulnerable-victim enhancement precluded it.

As to Feurtado’s substantive‐reasonableness challenge, the panel reaffirmed that an upward variance is permissible when a district court provides “rational and meaningful consideration” of the § 3553(a) factors, including seriousness of offense, deterrence goals, and defendant’s personal history, as required by Tomko and Grier.

3. Impact

Though non‐precedential, this decision offers persuasive guidance on applying § 3A1.1(b)(1) in relational fraud contexts:

It underscores that age plus exploitation of familial bonds satisfies the “particularly susceptible” criterion.
It reinforces that defendants need not directly interact with victims to “know” of their vulnerability if the scheme’s structure makes that knowledge inherent.
It affirms district courts’ latitude in assessing role reductions and upward variances when guided by established multi‐factor tests and § 3553(a).

Future wire‐fraud prosecutions targeting the elderly may rely on this reasoning to support vulnerable‐victim enhancements, while defense counsel must develop factual records to counter categorical vulnerability findings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Vulnerable Victim Adjustment (U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1): A two-level increase in offense level when a crime targets victims who, by reason of age, mental or physical condition, or other factors, are especially susceptible to the criminal act.
Minor/Minimal Participant Reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A downward adjustment (2–4 levels) if a defendant played a limited role in the criminal enterprise relative to others.
Zero–Point Offender (U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1): A two-level reduction for defendants with no prior criminal history, subject to certain exclusions (e.g., vulnerable-victim enhancements).
Upward Variance (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)): A sentence above the advisory Guidelines range, justified by additional sentencing factors such as the need for deterrence or the defendant’s background.

Conclusion

United States v. Bouanane and Feurtado confirms that grandparent scams fall squarely within the “vulnerable victim” provision of the Sentencing Guidelines when elderly targets are deliberately deceived via familial impersonation. The Third Circuit’s clear endorsement of the district court’s fact-driven application of § 3A1.1(b)(1), alongside its deference to role‐adjustment and variance decisions, provides a roadmap for both prosecutors and defense attorneys in future cases involving elder‐targeted fraud. This decision thus cements a key sentencing principle: exploiting age and emotional ties for financial gain warrants heightened punishment under federal sentencing law.