Navigation

Archive | restitution

Thursday, August 25th, 2022

The government can garnish your 401(k) for restitution

In United States v. Greebel, 21-993-cr (2d Cir. Aug. 24, 2022), the Second Circuit holds that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) enables the government to garnish a defendant’s retirement accounts to pay restitution.

Defendant Greebel was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud and ordered to pay over $10 million in restitution. Pursuant to this restitution order, the government tried to garnish two of his 401(k) retirement accounts. The defendant objected. The Circuit found that these accounts’ plans permitted the defendant himself to withdraw lump-sums. And because the MVRA empowered the government to reach any property “in which the debtor has a substantial nonexempt interest,” allowing the government to “step[] into the defendant’s shoes, acquiring whatever rights the defendant himself possesses” to property, the funds were fair game for the government.

In so holding, the Circuit addressed a potential conflict between the MVRA and the …

Posted by
Categories: MVRA, restitution

Posted By
Categories: MVRA, restitution

Continue Reading
Thursday, March 31st, 2022

“Hybrid” Restitution Order Makes Less Culpable Defendant Liable to Personally Pay the Full Amount Jointly Imposed Until All Restitution Has Been Paid, Including Additional Restitution Assessed Against More Culpable Defendant

After Ayfer and Hakan Yalincik, mother and son, pled guilty to a fraud scheme led by Hakan, the district court imposed $500,000 in restitution for one victim, for which the defendants were jointly and severally liable, and an additional $250,000 for the same victim, for which only Hakan was individually liable. After the victim had received more than $500,000 in payments, but was still owed $139,057 out of the total $750,000, the defendants moved for an order declaring Ayfer’s obligation satisfied because the amount for which she was jointly liable had been paid. Ayfer had personally “made only minimal restitution payments;” most of the payments were made by Hakan or distributed from bankruptcies of his businesses. The district court denied the motion. The Second Circuit affirmed, in an opinion by Judge Lynch, ruling that Ayfer was liable until either the victim was made completely whole or Ayfer had personally paid …

Posted by
Categories: joint and several liability, restitution

Posted By
Categories: joint and several liability, restitution

Continue Reading
Tuesday, March 15th, 2022

District court can’t delegate inpatient treatment decision, but Hobbs Act restitution order stands.

In a March 14, 2022 summary order, the Second Circuit reiterated the limits of a district court’s authority to delegate decisions about supervised release to the Probation Department. In United States v. Ely, No. 17-3081-cr, the court imposed a special condition of release requiring the defendant to complete “outpatient and/or inpatient drug treatment.” This wording left it to the Probation Department to decide which. But because inpatient treatment “entails a significantly greater restriction on a defendant’s liberty than outpatient treatment,” the district court was not permitted to delegate this decision to Probation. The Circuit accordingly vacated this portion of the defendant’s sentence.

In the same order, the Circuit declined to find that the district court plainly erred by imposing restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) for a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy. As relevant here, the MVRA mandates restitution for any “crime of violence,” as defined in 18 …

Posted by
Categories: delegation, restitution, supervised release

Posted By
Categories: delegation, restitution, supervised release

Continue Reading
Monday, September 13th, 2021

Second Circuit reverses and remands an order of restitution, imposed under the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) — 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2), (c) — because the Government failed to prove, by a preponderance, the proximate cause element: i.e., that the losses to the victims were foreseeable to the defendant in the course of committing the “offense of conviction.” United States v. Goodrich, No. 19-208, __F.4th__ , 2021 WL 3889801 (2d Cir. Sept. 1, 2021) (C.J.J. Calabresi, Pooler, Carney).

The Circuit reversed, in part, an Amended Judgment that imposed restitution under the MVRA, because, although the defendant was responsible for the $479,000 losses to purchasers of stocks traded on the public market, the government didn’t establish that the $1.85 million of losses from the “private placement” trades were foreseeable to Goodrich.

Defendant Goodrich, a broker-dealer in the over-the-counter securities market,  pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Goodrich executed fraudulent trades with co-defendants to artificially inflate the share price of a sham company named, Cubed, Inc.  Op at 3-4 (They allegedly engaged in a “pump and dump” market manipulation scheme, through “wash” and “matched” trades); see Op at 4, 6, footnotes 1 & 4 defining a pump & dump scheme and wash and matched trades).

Goodrich executed trades in the public market, while “his co-defendants, who are not appellants here, …

Posted by
Categories: MVRA, restitution

Posted By
Categories: MVRA, restitution

Continue Reading
Friday, January 8th, 2021

Second Circuit rejects application of the categorical approach for determining an “offense against property” under the MVRA.

In United States v. Razzouk, No. 18-1395 (2d Cir. Jan. 4, 2021), the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Carney, joined by Judge Walker and District Judge Koeltl, held that in determining whether a conviction is for an “offense against property,” such that restitution is required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii), a court may consider the facts and circumstances of the specific crime committed—not just the generic elements of the offense. The appellant had argued that his bribery conviction, which was based on a statute that does not refer to “property” or necessarily implicate its involvement, should not be subject to mandatory restitution. The Circuit rejected this, finding that an analysis based on the categorical approach was unwarranted and concluding that the facts of his case supported that it was an “offense against property.”

Defendant-appellant Sassine Razzouk pleaded guilty to one count …

Posted by
Categories: bribery, categorical approach, MVRA, restitution

Posted By
Categories: bribery, categorical approach, MVRA, restitution

Continue Reading
Tuesday, August 4th, 2020

District court erred in relying on uncharged conduct to select the applicable Guideline provision, and the error is not harmless despite the court’s claim that it would have imposed the same sentence under the correct Guideline.

In United States v. Huberfeld, 2d Cir. No. 19-436 (L), the Court (opinion by Judge Pooler, joined by Judges Lynch and Menashi) vacated both a 30-month sentence and a $19 million order of restitution for basically the same reason – the district court erred in relying on uncharged criminal conduct, beyond and broader than what the defendant actually pleaded guilty to via a negotiated information and plea agreement, in selecting the applicable Guideline provision and awarding restitution. The Court also found that the Guideline-selection error is not harmless, despite the district court’s claim that it would’ve imposed the same 30-month sentence under the correct Guideline, because under the circumstances here, the Court was not “confident” that the incorrect range did not “clearly” affect the court’s selection of the ultimate sentence.

Here’s the factual gist. Huberfeld solicited investments for Platinum Partners, a hedge fund. He spoke to co-conspirator Jona Rechnitz, …

Posted by
Categories: bribery, guideline, restitution, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: bribery, guideline, restitution, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Wednesday, November 20th, 2019

Who is “indigent”? $5,000 special assessment issue to watch out for

The Second Circuit today issued a Jacobson remand for the district court to explain how it decided that a person represented by the Federal Defenders office was still “non-indigent” under Section 2014(a). (See the summary order in United States v. Rosario). For those who haven’t encountered this issue yet, section 2014(a) is the “Justice for Victims Trafficking Act,” which mandates a $5,000 – rather than $100 – special assessment for any “non-indigent” person convicted of certain sex offenses. “Indigent” isn’t defined. Although there do seem to be some good proxies the court could use – qualification for appointed counsel or a determination that a fine is inappropriate – so far, the Circuit has offered little guidance. Maybe they will when Rosario comes back before the panel.

In the meantime, object to the $5,000 special assessment if you have any argument your client is indigent. It may seem like a …

Posted by
Categories: restitution, sex offenses

Posted By
Categories: restitution, sex offenses

Continue Reading
Friday, February 16th, 2018

Second Circuit Holds that A Criminally Culpable Corporation Is Not Entitled to Restitution for Its Employees’ Criminal Conduct

The Second Circuit issued two opinions this week on third parties’ claims for restitution and shares of criminally forfeited property from defendants. See Federal Insurance Co. v. United States & United States v. Mazer (related cases), Nos. 16-2967 & 16-3402 (2d Cir. 2017) (Parker, Lynch, Carney) (appeal from Daniels, J., SDNY), opinion available here; United States v. Ohle, No. 16-601 (2d Cir. 2017) (Leval, Calabresi, Cabranes) (appeal from Rakoff, J., SDNY), opinion available here.

The lengthier of these opinions, in Federal Insurance, brings welcome news (or at least a sigh of relief) to the sort of low-level employees to whom corporate defendants are incentivized to shift blame in white collar prosecutions. Federal Insurance concerns a corporation’s entitlement to restitution and forfeiture payments from employees who were convicted for participating in a fraud for which the corporation is criminally culpable. In part, the opinion affirms …

Posted by
Categories: CVRA, forfeiture, fraud, MVRA, restitution, victims

Posted By
Categories: CVRA, forfeiture, fraud, MVRA, restitution, victims

Continue Reading
Wednesday, January 10th, 2018

Burdens of Proof & Restitution Under The MVRA

Yesterday the Second Circuit issued a short opinion concerning the burdens of proof for modifying restitution orders under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A & 3664. Specifically, the panel held that the district court acted within its discretion in requiring the defendant to prove that a victim recovered money in civil litigation “for the same loss” caused by the defendant. Id. § 3664(j)(2) (requiring that a restitution order be reduced by the amount of such recoveries). The opinion in United States v. Smathers, No. 16-2394 (Kearse, Cabranes, Wesley) (per curiam) (appeal from Hellerstein, J., SDNY), is available here.

Mr. Smathers, a former AOL employee, was ordered to pay $84,000 in restitution to AOL in connection with his conviction for selling the company’s customer list to be used for spam. Through his attorney, Mr. Smathers requested that the district court determine whether this restitution order …

Posted by
Categories: burden of proof, MVRA, restitution

Posted By
Categories: burden of proof, MVRA, restitution

Continue Reading
Tuesday, January 17th, 2017

Circuit affirms restitution order based on co-conspirator interview

In United States v. Pinto, the Second Circuit affirmed an order of restitution that was based, in part, on a government memorandum recounting an interview with a co-conspirator.  The District Court had refused to order the government to produce the QuickBooks records that were a partial basis for its restitution calculations.

The District Court has the discretion to decide the procedure it will employ in determining a restitution award “so long as the defendant is given an adequate opportunity to present his position.”  Order at 3. The court “is only required to ascertain by a preponderance of the evidence ‘a reasonable approximation of losses by a sound methodology.'” Id. (citing  United States v. Gushlak, 728 F. 3d 184, 196, and Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 1727-28 (2014)).…

Posted by
Categories: restitution

Posted By
Categories: restitution

Continue Reading
Tuesday, October 25th, 2016

Restitution Isn’t A Windfall

waterfalls-img

In today’s United States v. Stevens, the Second Circuit (Winter, Chin, Droney) remanded a case for further proceedings because it was unclear whether the district court made the findings needed to support its restitution order.

Stevens fraudulently obtained a loan, ultimately acquired by Capital One Bank, for his business partnership.  The partnership later repaid Capital One in full and Stevens pleaded guilty to fraud in federal court.  The judge, in addition to ordering Stevens’s imprisonment, ordered him to pay restitution to the partnership.  The Second Circuit remanded, however, because “the district court did not make sufficient factual findings, which are necessary to our review of the restitution award.”

“Because restitution is intended to make the victim whole, it must be based only on the actual loss caused by the scheme.  Restitution is not intended to provide a victim with a windfall.”  And where a victim is reimbursed by a …

Posted by
Categories: restitution

Posted By
Categories: restitution

Continue Reading