14 results for 'cat:"Fraud" AND cat:"Restitution"'.
J. Christiansen Forster finds that the district court properly adjusted the $100 monthly restitution payments defendant was making toward a $50,000 total. The new $1,100 monthly payments, which were based on an updated financial declaration, changed only the payment schedule, not the underlying restitution order or the original sentence, so statute, double jeopardy or due process rights were not violated. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Christiansen Forster, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 20230253-CA, Categories: fraud, restitution, Securities
J. Erickson finds a lower court improperly calculated a defendant's restitution order after he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. The government argued that the amount of restitution imposed on the former bookkeeping employee was reasonable based on his theft of company checks and his attempt to double his income by stealing from his employer. However, the defendant sufficiently showed in court that he sold his shares in the company to offset the amount of the loss, which entitled him to a reduction by $50,000. Reversed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Erickson, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: 23-2173, Categories: fraud, restitution, Employment
[Consolidated.] J. Rovner finds that the lower court properly ordered defendant to pay $1.2 million in restitution for her role in a scheme to file hundreds of fraudulent tax returns. The evidence supports the calculation of the restitution figure and does not support characterizing some of the false returns as part of a separate scheme. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Rovner, Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 22-1360, Categories: fraud, restitution, Tax
J. Jones finds the district court properly ordered restitution for defendants' convictions for healthcare fraud and receiving Medicare kickbacks. No error is found in the court’s calculation of the improper benefit received as to the purpose of sentencing and restitution. That a certain defendant received the primary benefit from the fraudulent payments is irrelevant for assessing restitution. The court properly imposed restitution on each defendant jointly and severally for the full amount. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Jones , Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 22-20620, Categories: fraud, Sentencing, restitution
[Consolidated] J. Higginbotham finds the district court properly convicted defendants by guilty plea for fraudulent Medicare billing. The owner and an employee of the mental health rehab clinic stipulated to a loss of $3.5 million and recommended the judge order that much in restitution. Both defendants now argue the restitution order was erroneous, with the employee also saying the loss should not have been attributed to her. There was an adequate factual basis to support the pleas, and the restitution did not exceed the actual loss. The court appropriately used the total amount when calculating the sentences and defendants received the benefit of their plea agreements when the more-than-50-count indictment was dismissed. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Higginbotham , Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: 22-30242, Categories: fraud, restitution, Plea
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Hudson affirms the district court's determination that the defendant's equity in his home is a "resource" for the purposes of calculating his ability to pay criminal restitution. Home equity may be considered a "useful and valuable possession" for those purposes even when the home is co-owned with a non-defendant spouse. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Hudson, Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: A22-0630, Categories: fraud, restitution
J. Terrell finds the superior court erred in awarding restitution for conduct for which an individual was acquitted in a Medicaid fraud case. “The fraudulent billings for day habilitation services did not render [defendant] legally accountable for the fraudulent billings for residential supported-living services.” Reversed.
Court: Alaska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Terrell, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: A-13714, Categories: fraud, restitution
Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly ordered $5.2 million in restitution after defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to engage in securities fraud to meet employer commission targets. Defendant contends restitution should have been apportioned with his coconspirator in the unauthorized customer trade scheme, but the court did not abuse its discretion in finding both men equally responsible. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 22-1547, Categories: fraud, restitution, Securities
J. Mortensen finds that the trial court did not impermissibly broaden the jury instructions in defendant's communications fraud trial to charge him with a different offense than those charged through the state's information. The removal of the phrase "to defraud another" narrowed, not broadened, the charge, so the change was not a constructive amendment to the instructions. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Mortensen, Filed On: November 24, 2023, Case #: 20210838-CA, Categories: fraud, restitution, Jury Instructions
[Consolidated.] J. Raggi finds that the district court properly convicted attorney Michael Avenatti of extortion and honest-services wire fraud in seeking millions from Nike on the promise of getting a client to settle a youth basketball sponsorship matter with the sportswear company. Sufficient evidence supported the wrongfulness element of Avenatti's acts in demanding up to $25 million to conduct an internal investigation of payoffs allegedly made to young players and their parents when such offered no benefit to his client. Furthermore, Nike was properly granted more than $250,000 in restitution to recover attorney fees expended while Avenatti committed the crimes. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Raggi, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 21-1778(L), Categories: fraud, restitution, Extortion
Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly convicted defendant, who provides financial advice to professional hockey players and other high-net-worth clients, of diverting money for unauthorized use. The jury was improperly instructed on the credibility of "interested witnesses," including the adviser, but the instruction was not key to the conviction since evidence overwhelmingly established defendant's involvement in several fraudulent schemes. Meanwhile, restitution totaling $16.2 million was properly imposed. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: July 24, 2023, Case #: 21-2289, Categories: fraud, restitution, Money Laundering
[Consolidated.] J. Thapar finds the lower court erroneously imposed a new provision on defendant's forfeiture order because that provision dealt with restitution for his failure to make payments on the initial forfeiture order, a wholly separate concept that required a different analysis and set of proceedings. Therefore, the provision will be vacated and the case remanded to allow the court to follow applicable guidelines if it wishes to re-impose the penalty. Reversed in part.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Thapar, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: 22-6043, Categories: fraud, Forfeiture, restitution
J. Brennan affirms a district court’s rejection of a defendant’s challenge to the government’s plan to use his $75,000 settlement of a health claim against the federal prison where he was incarcerated for bank fraud. Federal law authorizes the government to offset the settlement funds against a nearly $1.5 million restitution debt, money which the government then forwards to victims of crimes by the defendant and an accomplice. The defendant’s restitution has been past due since his sentencing. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Brennan, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 22-2003, Categories: fraud, restitution, Accomplice Liability
J. Duffy finds a lower court ruled mostly correctly in convicting defendant of charges related to credit card fraud. Defendant raised a range of issues with her conviction, including arguing that she should have received more credit for time served, but the credit defendant seeks “was already counted toward a sentence imposed in a prior case.” However, the lower court should recalculate its restitution order because it calculated restitution based on nine unauthorized transactions rather than “the single transaction for which defendant was convicted.” Affirmed in part.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-38256, Categories: fraud, Sentencing, restitution