USA Foreclosure Wiki

United States v. Marr, Sanchez & Casorso (N.D. Cal. 2017–2018)

6 min read

United States v. Marr, Sanchez & Casorso (N.D. Cal. 2017–2018)

Defendants: Michael Marr, Javier Sanchez, Gregory Casorso · Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland), No. 4:14-cr-00580-PJH (Chief Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton) · Convicted at trial: June 2, 2017 · Marr sentenced: March 21, 2018

The largest jury-trial conviction set in the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s northern-california-foreclosure-auction-bid-rigging investigation. Three real-estate investors were convicted on all counts of conspiring to rig bids at public foreclosure auctions, and the lead defendant, Michael Marr, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a fine of more than $1.39 million.

Scope

Federal criminal antitrust (Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1). Northern District of California. Companion matter to united-states-v-joyce-2018, the published Ninth Circuit opinion that established bid rigging at foreclosure auctions as a per se Sherman Act violation and governs this cluster.

Facts (the scheme)

A federal grand jury in the Northern District of California indicted Marr (charged Nov. 19, 2014), Sanchez, and Casorso for conspiring to rig bids at public real-estate foreclosure auctions. After a three-week trial, a federal jury on June 2, 2017 convicted all three on all counts (DOJ Press Release 17-603):

  • All three were convicted of conspiring to rig bids at foreclosure auctions in Alameda County, California, between June 2008 and January 2011.
  • Marr and Sanchez were also convicted of conspiring to rig bids at foreclosure auctions in Contra Costa County, California, between July 2008 and January 2011.

Per the DOJ releases and the government’s trial evidence: the conspirators designated the winning bidders to obtain selected properties at the public auctions and negotiated payoffs among themselves in return for not competing. They then held second, private auctions at or near the courthouse steps where the public auctions were held, awarding properties to the conspirators who submitted the highest bids in those private rounds. Michael Marr, as CEO of Community Fund, LLC and Community Realty Property Management Inc., sent multiple employees to the auctions to rig bids on his behalf; his agents purchased several hundred properties through the conspiracies and were owed payoffs on hundreds more (DOJ Press Release 18-343).

Holding / outcome

Convictions on all counts (jury), affirmed on the controlling legal question by the Ninth Circuit in the companion Joyce line.

Sentences (from the DOJ Antitrust Division releases retrieved):

  • Michael Marr — sentenced March 21, 2018 to 30 months in prison, 3 years supervised release, and a criminal fine of $1,397,061.59 (DOJ Press Release 18-343).
  • Javier Sanchez — 21 months in prison, 3 years supervised release, and an $88,140 fine (per DOJ Antitrust Division reporting; figure corroborated by the Division’s case record — see note below).
  • Gregory Casorso — 18 months in prison, 3 years supervised release, and a $20,000 fine (per DOJ Antitrust Division reporting — see note below).

Verification note. The Marr sentence (30 months; $1,397,061.59 fine) is confirmed from the full text of DOJ Press Release 18-343, retrieved via the Internet Archive. The exact Sanchez and Casorso figures (21 months/$88,140 and 18 months/$20,000) are reported by the Antitrust Division but were not independently re-fetched from each individual primary release in this pass; treat those two line items as needs_verification against the specific DOJ sentencing release or judgment for each defendant. The fact of their June 2, 2017 conviction on all counts is confirmed from DOJ Press Release 17-603.

Reasoning / legal posture

This was a per se Sherman Act prosecution: the government had to prove the agreement to rig bids, not its market effects. The defendants’ appeals to the Ninth Circuit raised challenges paralleling those rejected in united-states-v-joyce-2018, which held bid rigging per se illegal under § 1 and barred procompetitive-effects evidence. A subsequent petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed and the convictions stood. (The precise appellate disposition citation for Marr/Sanchez/Casorso is needs_verification — confirmed here through the companion Joyce precedent and the existence of the cert petition, not from a separately retrieved Ninth Circuit slip opinion in this matter.)

Practical impact

  • These trial convictions — as opposed to negotiated pleas — show DOJ’s willingness to try foreclosure-auction bid-rigging cases to verdict and to seek multi-year custodial sentences and seven-figure fines against the organizers. Marr’s role as a company CEO directing employee-agents to rig bids drew the heaviest sentence.
  • The case illustrates the recurring mechanics regulators target: pre-auction non-compete agreements, designated winners, payoffs, and a concealed “round” private auction at the courthouse steps. See sherman-antitrust-bid-rigging.
  • Together with united-states-v-joyce-2018, it shows that running or financing the collusive structure is enough; that the properties were distressed or sold during a housing downturn is no defense.

▸ For Investors / Operators. Sending agents or employees to “hold” bids, splitting properties by agreement, or running a private post-sale auction among insiders is a chargeable felony conspiracy — and organizers face the steepest exposure. Lawful joint ventures and partnerships exist, but the line is precise: see auction-bid-rigging-antitrust-compliance.

Good-law status

Still good law. Convictions stand; the controlling per se rule was affirmed in the companion Ninth Circuit decision united-states-v-joyce-2018. Not disturbed as of last_verified 2026-06-02.

Why it matters

Marr is the clearest example in the Northern California cluster of the Antitrust Division prosecuting the architects of a foreclosure-auction bid-rigging ring through trial to conviction and substantial prison time. It signals that surplus-suppressing collusion at foreclosure sales — which diverts proceeds away from mortgage holders and homeowners entitled to any surplus — is treated as serious federal crime, not a civil pricing dispute.

Sources

Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes criminal proceedings for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary court records and DOJ releases and consult a licensed attorney before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.

Graph View

Backlinks