Young, a cattle rancher, and McConnell, an accountant, were involved in several business entities in the cattle business for over a decade. They solicited funds to invest in their cattle operations, representing to clients and banks that they had more assets than they actually did. When the price of cattle fell in 2001, the scheme collapsed, and Young and McConnell closed their businesses and filed bankruptcy. They claimed to own over 343,000 head of cattle, when in fact they owned only 17,000. Their investors lost $147 million, and banks lost $36 million. Only $16 million was recovered.

1. The appeals court affirmed the sentences and noted that they could have been much heavier.
Assuming the same size loss occurred, why would the penalty be greater if such a fraud threatened the solvency of a bank?
2. Defendants were guilty of mail fraud and other violations. Why would they be convicted on multiple counts, rather than just one count for their illegal activity? Is that just piling on more punishment for the same event?