By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE federal court has denied the motion of a businessman convicted of conspiracy and wire fraud for looting the Bank of Saipan of over $6 million through fraudulent loans and transactions.
U.S. District Court for NMI Chief Judge Alex R. Munson, in an order on Friday, denied the motion of Bert Douglas Montgomery for re-sentencing.
The judge said the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offense, adding that to have imposed a different sentence would not have met the goal of promoting respect for the law.
According to Munson, Montgomery’s sentence provided just punishment for the harm inflicted by him.
The sentence, the judge added, will help deter other acts of fraud and “sends a strong message to other potential confidence men that the citizens and residents of the commonwealth will be protected from predators of their kind.”
Montgomery was 65 years old when he was sentenced on Dec. 31, 2003 to 240 months in prison and was ordered to pay restitution jointly and severally with his co-defendants to the Bank of Saipan in the amount of $5,273,643.70, and to bank depositor Michelle Hom in the amount of $209,980.
On June 18, 2003, Montgomery was convicted by a jury on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, three counts of wire fraud, one count of wire fraud (deprivation of honest service), three counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy to launder money.
He appealed the sentence and submitted a motion for re-sentencing.
The federal court on Aug. 29, 2005 issued an order denying the re-sentencing request.
A year later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter to the federal court with directions that it “obtain the views of counsel before it decides whether…re-sentencing is warranted.”
On Sept. 29, 2006, the federal court issued an order that “counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant shall submit written comments addressing any factors, not only within the advisory sentencing guidelines, but also those encompassed by the goals and purposes of sentencing…that counsel believes warrants re-sentencing of this defendant.”
The court gave the parties until Oct. 20, 2006 to file their submissions.
On Oct. 18, 2006, the parties stipulated to continue the matter for three months until after Jan. 2007.
The federal court, in an order dated Oct. 19, 2006, denied the joint motion to continue for that length of time.
However in an order on Oct. 20, the court granted both counsels a 30-day extension of time to file memoranda and address the issue of re-sentencing.
The court stated that the motion to set aside this matter for re-sentencing is taken under advisement until it had the opportunity to review and consider the submissions.
Montgomery filed his memorandum and attachments on Nov. 19, 2006 while the plaintiff’s submissions were filed on Nov. 20, 2006.
According to Munson, the court has read all filings entirely “and its sentence would not have been different, let alone materially different, had it known at the time of the original sentencing that the sentencing guidelines were advisory.”
Munson said the court’s position remains unchanged as to the justification for its original sentence which was stated on the record on Dec. 31, 2003.
The “defendant’s claim that no depositor suffered any loss during the time the bank was under receivership is unsupported by any documentation,” Munson said in his order.
“More important to the court, though, is that the need for the receivership was due to the actions of this defendant,” he added. “The court cannot specifically quantify the harm to the Bank of Saipan’s depositors by their inability to access their accounts or the effort on the bank’s stability and soundness by its having to expend its limited resources on sizeable attorney fees or the lingering reticence of potential customers to make use of the bank’s services. But it should be apparent that great harm was done to the bank and this community by the defendant and his confederates.”
Munson said Montgomery’s sentence was sufficient but not greater that necessary to meet those factors.
“The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of defendant were taken into account by the pre-sentence report. The court was fully aware of the defendant’s age, health and personal characteristics,” Munson said in his order.
“As to defendant’s age, the court concluded that society would not be served by applying a sentencing discount for this middle aged criminal. Medical care will be available to defendant through out his incarceration,” Munson said.
He said Montgomery will be required to make use of at least some of the educational opportunities available during incarceration and he will receive any medical treatment he requires.
Montgomery, Dusean Berkich and the bank’s former chairman and chief executive officer of the Bank of Saipan, Tomas B. Aldan, were convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy charges.
According to the prosecution, the three conspired to fraudulently obtain ownership and control of Bank of Saipan. They then made a series of fraudulent loans for the purpose of enriching themselves and their associates.
After Aldan was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment, he appealed his conviction.
On July 27, 2005, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the federal court which denied re-sentencing on Sept. 6, 2005.
Berkich, who received a 10-year jail term, took his own life before he could serve his sentence. He was 65.