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 …