The Lorraine Brown Indictment- "The Court SHALL order the Defendant to make restitution to victims of her offenses"

The following paragraph comes from the plea agreement just entered today in USA v. Lorraine Brown.   Now, the plea makes it very clear..(see that word SHALL), that the defendant must pay restitution to the victims of her offense.   When the offense is executing false assignments and forging signatures on assignments, does this provision not apply to every person whose file contained an offending assignment and document?
The defendant understands and agrees that the Court, in addition to or in
lieu of any other penalty, shall order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of
the offense(s), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, for all offenses described in 18 U.S.C. §
3663A(c)(1) (limited to offenses committed on or after April 24, 1996); and the Court
may order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of the offense(s), pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3663 (limited to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987),
including restitution as to all counts charged, whether or not the defendant enters a plea
of guilty to such counts, and whether or not such counts are dismissed pursuant to this
agreement. On each count to which a plea of guilty is entered, the Court shall impose a
special assessment, to be payable to the Clerk’s Office, United States District Court,
and due on date of sentencing. The defendant understands that this agreement
imposes no limitation as to fine.
THE EFFORTS TO CONCEAL:
While engaging in this scheme to charge fees to DocX clients for products and
services that the clients never received, Brown and others took various steps to conceal
their actions from detection.
Defendant’s Initials~/ 5
Brown and her co-conspirators took actions to conceal the fake signatures and
false notarization. For example, Brown’s co-conspirator, at Brown’s direction and
authorization, trained new DocX signers to mimic the actual signatures of the
Authorized Signers, and then tested them on their ability to do so before signing client
documents. To assist in the scheme, samples of the actual Authorized Signers’
signatures were taped to the signing tables. To provide an additional layer of sham
authenticity, the documents were then falsely notarized. Brown authorized or directed
these practices.
Additional acts of concealment were taken. After certain DocX employees raised
concerns about the legality of the signing practices, Brown developed official-looking, inhouse
signing policies purporting to delegate signing authority from the Authorized
Signers to other DocX employees. Starting in 2003, the policy was called “Facsimile
Signature.” In early 2009, the practice was labeled “Surrogate Signing.”
Brown and her co-conspirators also concealed their conduct from clients,
instructing DocX employees to hide their signing practices during client visits. Further,
Brown hid DocX’s signing practices from LPS’s corporate headquarters. For example,
in mid-2009, LPS auditors visited Alpharetta to conduct a risk assessment of DocX.
Prior to the visit, Brown provided documents to the auditors describing the process
DocX used in executing documents. Brown deliberately concealed from the auditors
that the above-described signing practices were being used at that time.
Further Acts of Deception and Attempted Cover-Up
In October 2009, an individual sent a letter to LPS corporate headquarters in
Jacksonville, Florida alleging fraud and forgery in the execution of documents related to his mortgage by DocX. Upon receipt of the letter, LPS corporate representatives
confronted Brown. Brown falsely stated that she was unaware of DocX’s signing
. practices and blamed the conduct on two “rogue” employees. Shortly thereafter, LPS
terminated Brown’s employment.
Even after she was fired, Brown attempted to conceal her role in the scheme.
Specifically, on February 9, 2010, Brown was interviewed by an agent with the Federal
.Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). During that interview, Brown made several material
false statements to the FBI, including the following: (i) at no time did Brown instruct any
individual at DocX to pursue the “Surrogate Signing” practices for the business; (ii)
Brown was unaware of DocX’s “Surrogate Signer” program and was never informed by
her management staff that they were engaging in such activity with their clients’
financial documentation; and (iii) Brown did not learn of DocX’s use of the “Surrogate
Signer” program until LPS corporate personnel first contacted her in October 2009.
Ms. Brown knowingly made these false statements to the FBI in an effort to further
conceal her role in the scheme.
Plea Agreement