Jessica Murray* is an Ohio financial professional who purchased a home from an individual who needed to launder some illicit cash. She improperly accepted US$93,000, and claimed to a lender bank that it represented her savings, and used it as a substantial down payment. Murray thereby qualified for a "no document" loan, meaning that her credit and ability to repay the loan were not considered.

The court's sentence:

• Three years' Probation.

• She surrender her mortgage-related licenses for Ohio & Indiana.

• After the sale of the residence she purchased, a fine and restitution will be imposed.

Compare and contrast this case with one in the Southern District of Florida**, where the defendants laundered money for law enforcement agents who masqueraded as criminals. The sentences meted out to the defendants:

• 83 months.

• 63 months.

• 27 months.

• 20 months.

The whole purpose of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines  (no longer mandatory, only advisory) was to create uniformity in sentencing. Is probation too lenient? Yes. Is 83 months to severe? You be the judge, but I would like to see the Federal courts act consistently.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *   06-cr-00082 (S.D. Ohio).
** 98-cr-00866 (S.D. Fla.)