The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's restitution order requiring convicted wire fraudster Sean Grusd to pay $21.6 million to victims of his elaborate fraud scheme, rejecting his appeal challenging the calculation method used by the lower court.
In a decision issued Jan. 14, Circuit Judge Taibleson wrote for a three-judge panel that Grusd waived his right to challenge a $1.6 million credit applied to his restitution order because he acquiesced to the reduction during sentencing proceedings. The ruling effectively ends Grusd's attempt to dispute the final restitution amount in *United States v. Grusd* (7th Cir. 2026).
Grusd was convicted of wire fraud following a two-year scheme from 2021 to 2022 in which he falsely presented himself as a successful investor to numerous victims across 15 separate cases. The defendant, who was living in Chicago at the time, convinced victims to entrust him with funds he claimed would be invested in promising business opportunities.
According to court records, many victims provided Grusd with life savings or money intended for their children's education, believing his representations about profitable investment opportunities. To substantiate his fraudulent claims, Grusd created and distributed fake documentation including stock certificates, purchase agreements, and bank statements that appeared to validate his investment activities.
Instead of investing the funds as promised, Grusd used the victims' money for personal expenses, including the purchase of multiple luxury vehicles for women he met through internet dating platforms. This pattern of deception continued for approximately two years before authorities intervened.
Grusd pleaded guilty in May 2023 to one count of wire fraud in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, before Judge Sara L. Ellis. As part of his plea agreement, Grusd initially agreed to pay approximately $23.2 million in restitution to compensate the 15 sets of victims for their losses.
However, during sentencing proceedings, the district court reduced the restitution amount to approximately $21.6 million. Judge Ellis made this adjustment based on representations from both parties regarding amounts that Grusd had allegedly already paid to some victims prior to sentencing. The $1.6 million reduction was intended to credit Grusd for these previous payments.
On appeal, Grusd challenged the district court's restitution calculation, arguing that Judge Ellis committed plain error by reducing the agreed-upon total without requiring additional documentation to substantiate the amounts he had previously paid. Grusd contended that the court should not have relied solely on the parties' representations without more concrete evidence of the payments.
The Seventh Circuit panel, consisting of Chief Judge Brennan and Circuit Judges Sykes and Taibleson, unanimously rejected Grusd's arguments. Writing for the court, Judge Taibleson determined that Grusd had waived his right to challenge the $1.6 million credit by acquiescing to the reduction during the sentencing hearing.
The court explained that because Grusd did not object to the credit when it was applied, he cannot now argue on appeal that the district court erred in its calculation. This waiver doctrine prevents defendants from accepting favorable rulings at trial and then challenging those same rulings if they later prove disadvantageous.
Alternatively, even if Grusd had merely forfeited rather than waived his objection to the restitution calculation, the Seventh Circuit found that his claim would not satisfy the stringent requirements for plain-error review. Under this standard, appellate courts can only reverse for unpreserved errors that are obvious, affect substantial rights, and seriously undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The case highlights the importance of preserving objections during district court proceedings and the limited circumstances under which appellate courts will review unpreserved claims. It also demonstrates the significant financial consequences that can result from wire fraud convictions, with restitution orders often reaching into the millions of dollars.
The wire fraud conviction and substantial restitution order reflect the serious nature of Grusd's crimes and their impact on multiple victims who trusted him with significant sums of money. The scheme's use of false documentation and exploitation of victims' trust for personal gain exemplifies the type of conduct that federal wire fraud statutes are designed to address.
The Seventh Circuit's decision was argued on Dec. 16, 2025, and decided on Jan. 14, 2026, completing the appellate process for this case. With the affirmance of the district court's judgment, Grusd remains obligated to pay the $21.6 million restitution order to compensate his victims for their losses.