The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing Tuesday and reversed bank fraud convictions for defendants Tonya Robinson and Albert Smith in *United States v. Robinson and Smith* (7th Cir. 2026). The court directed the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal on the bank fraud counts while affirming wire fraud convictions.

The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, Ilana Diamond Rovner, and Michael Y. Scudder, issued an order amending their December 15, 2025 opinion to clarify the scope of their remand instructions. Robinson and Smith had filed the petition requesting clarification that the district court should enter a judgment of acquittal on their bank fraud convictions.

"The petition is granted," the court wrote in its January 28 order. The panel added specific language to page nine of their original opinion stating: "For these reasons, we reverse Robinson and Smith's bank fraud convictions and direct the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal and to amend its judgment consistent with this opinion."

The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, under Judge Jon E. DeGuilio. The defendants were convicted on multiple counts including both bank fraud and wire fraud charges stemming from case number 3:21-cr-00064-JD-MGG.

According to the appeals court's order, the panel made several clarifications to their original decision. On page 15 of the amended opinion, the court specified that the limited remand applied only "on this particular issue," referring specifically to Robinson's restitution obligations. This clarification narrowed the scope of what the district court would need to reconsider on remand.

The Seventh Circuit's final disposition creates a mixed outcome for the defendants. While the court reversed their convictions on Counts 2-7, which involved bank fraud charges, it affirmed their wire fraud conviction on Count 8. This distinction suggests the appeals court found sufficient evidence to support the wire fraud charge but determined the bank fraud convictions could not stand.

For defendant Albert Smith, the court also affirmed the district court's use of an abuse-of-trust enhancement during sentencing. This enhancement typically increases the sentencing range when a defendant exploited a position of trust to commit the offense. The appeals court's affirmation of this enhancement indicates Smith likely held a position that gave him special access or responsibility related to the criminal conduct.

Regarding restitution, the court remanded the case to allow the district court to clarify the joint and several nature of Robinson's restitution obligations. Joint and several liability means each defendant can be held responsible for the full amount of restitution, rather than just their individual share of the losses. The remand suggests the original sentencing may not have clearly established how restitution responsibilities would be allocated between the co-defendants.

The court summarized its final instructions comprehensively: "For these reasons, we REVERSE the bank fraud convictions on Counts 2-7 and direct the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal on these counts and to amend its judgment consistent with this opinion; we AFFIRM the wire fraud convictions on Count 8; we AFFIRM the district court's use of the abuse-of-trust enhancement when sentencing Smith; and we REMAND to allow the district court to clarify the joint and several nature of Robinson's restitution."

The petition for rehearing demonstrates the defendants' legal team successfully argued that the original remand instructions were insufficiently clear about the consequences of the bank fraud conviction reversals. Rather than requiring the defendants to seek further clarification through additional proceedings, the appeals court proactively amended its opinion to provide explicit direction.

This case illustrates the importance of precise judicial language in appellate decisions. When appellate courts reverse convictions, the specific instructions they provide to district courts can significantly impact defendants' outcomes. The clarification that the district court should enter a judgment of acquittal, rather than merely remanding for further proceedings, provides definitive resolution on the bank fraud charges.

The mixed verdict - reversing bank fraud convictions while affirming wire fraud charges - suggests the evidence presented at trial supported some but not all of the government's theories of criminal liability. Such outcomes often reflect different elements required to prove various types of fraud charges or different standards of evidence for each count.

The case will now return to the district court for implementation of the Seventh Circuit's amended instructions. Judge DeGuilio will need to enter the judgment of acquittal on the bank fraud counts, modify the overall judgment accordingly, and address the restitution clarification for Robinson. The wire fraud conviction and Smith's enhanced sentence will remain intact based on the appeals court's affirmation.