Filed: Oct. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER REGARDING RESTITUTION JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant Kirit Patel ("Defendant") entered a guilty plea to four counts of wire and mail fraud. In the plea agreement, Defendant acknowledged that restitution was appropriate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3663 et seq. Plea Agreement (Doc. #64) at 2. The parties also agreed that "[a]ny restitution paid by this defendant pursuant to the civil lawsuit Federal Trade Commission v. Broadway Global Mast
Summary: ORDER REGARDING RESTITUTION JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant Kirit Patel ("Defendant") entered a guilty plea to four counts of wire and mail fraud. In the plea agreement, Defendant acknowledged that restitution was appropriate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3663 et seq. Plea Agreement (Doc. #64) at 2. The parties also agreed that "[a]ny restitution paid by this defendant pursuant to the civil lawsuit Federal Trade Commission v. Broadway Global Maste..
More
ORDER REGARDING RESTITUTION
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant Kirit Patel ("Defendant") entered a guilty plea to four counts of wire and mail fraud. In the plea agreement, Defendant acknowledged that restitution was appropriate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663 et seq. Plea Agreement (Doc. #64) at 2. The parties also agreed that "[a]ny restitution paid by this defendant pursuant to the civil lawsuit Federal Trade Commission v. Broadway Global Master, et al, 2:12-cv-00855-JAM-DAD, will be credited against restitution owed by this defendant under the agreement." Id. at 3. Because restitution in the civil case likely will not reimburse all victims, Defendant may be required to pay restitution beyond the amount recovered by the Federal Trade Commission. This Court therefore held a hearing to determine restitution in this criminal matter on October 27, 2015. After hearing arguments from the parties, the Court took the matter under submission.
II. OPINION
A. Legal Standard
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act provides that "when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense [including any offense committed by fraud or deceit], the court shall order. . . that the defendant make restitution to the victim[s] of the offense[.]" 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). A "victim" includes "any person directly harmed by the defendant's criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern." 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2). The government bears the burden of proof to establish the facts and the amount of restitution owed by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 557 (9th Cir. 2008). In reaching a restitution amount, the Court may only rely on "evidence that possesses sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy." Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted).
B. Analysis
The government here has produced victim statements from 104 victims (Docs. ##70-5-70-9). It also offered spreadsheets provided by Wal-Mart's Green Dot card providers (GE Bank and Synovus Bank) as to many of those 104 victims (Docs. ##83-4, 83-5). At the restitution hearing, Defendant disputed the sufficiency of the evidence as to specific victims. The Court has examined the evidence in detail and concludes that the government has proven that restitution is warranted for certain victims as described below.
1. Victims Not Entitled to Restitution
Victim Initials/Location Reason for Awarding No
Restitution
V.B (Rochester, NY) No documentation offered by
government
L.D (Laurel, MS) Loss occurred before the fraud
was foreseeable to Defendant
W.E. (Bartonville, IL) Loss occurred before the fraud
was foreseeable to Defendant
R.H. (Sicklerville, NJ) No documentation offered by
government
J.J (Schenectady, NY) Victim requested no restitution
L.R. (Jamaica, NY) No documentation offered by
government
J.S. (Madison, WI) Victim requested no restitution
L.S. (Waterloo, IA) Requested categories not
related to the scheme
C.W (Knoxville, MD) Loss occurred before the fraud
was foreseeable to Defendant
K.W. (Bremen, GA) Loss occurred before the fraud
was foreseeable to Defendant
W.W. (Prospect Park, NJ) Loss occurred before the fraud
was foreseeable to Defendant
The Court denies restitution to these victims. However, the Court will allow the government to submit supplemental documentation for those (and only those) who have been denied because of "no documentation": V.B. (Rochester, NY), R.H. (Sicklerville, NJ), and L.R. (Jamaica, NY).
2. Victims for Whom Restitution Was Adequately Proven
Victim Initials/Location Amount of Restitution Proven by
a Preponderance of the Evidence
D.A. (Branchland, WV) $785
J.B. (Buffalo, NY) $200
K.B. (East Orange, NJ) $2,274
R.B. (Columbus, OH) $355
A.B. (Greenwood, SC) $200
J.B. (Canonsburg, PA) $110
J.B. (Wapakoneta, OH) 3,095.95
B.B. (Trenton, NJ) $1,015.67
T.B. (Dallas, GA) $277
N.B. (New York, NY) $210
L.C. (Jackson, TN) $300
M.C. (Lubbock, TX) $150
A.C. (Grants, NM) $380
K.C. (Conroe, TX) $260
L.D. (Cranford, NJ) $955.58
K.D. (Bristol, MA) $914
C.D. (Oak Creek, WI) $405
F.D. (W. Bridgewater, MA) $300
M.D. (Mt. Olive, MS) $246
L.E. (San Antonio, TX) $715
J.E. (New Baden, IL) $565
T.F. (Honolulu, HI) $245
T.F. (Olney, MD) $2,620
M.F. (Austin, TX) $1,005
T.F. (Chester, PA) $1,172
T.F. (Charlotte, NC) $156
S.F. (Dallas, TX) $225
D.G. (Fort White, FL) $321
P.G. (Schulenberg, TX) $100
C.G. (Mawnelle, AR) $100
M.G. (Berkeley, CA) $419
M.G. (Plainfield, IN) $251
T.H. (Elizabethtown, TN) $435
J.H. (Brandywine, MD) $1,224
T.H. (Bridgeport, CT) $510
M.H. (Reynoldsville, PA) $450
F.H. (Ft. Irwin, CA) $745
M.H. (Lubbock, TX) $800
H.H. (Sacramento, CA) $3,486
K.H. (Adalusia, AL) $796
T.H. (Saugerties, NY) $1,682
E.I. (Austin, TX) $330
D.J. (Soddy-Daisy, TN) $325
S.J. (Pontiac, MI) $244
J.J. (Laurel, MS) $111
K.J. (Morrow, GA) $380
B.K. (Jasper, TN) $145
E.K. (Mechanicsville, MD) $793
B.K. (Franklin, LA) $922
B.K. (Gwynn Oak, MD) $200
A.K. (Lykens, PA) $960
D.L. (McKinney, TX) $211
H.L. (Rogers, AR) $589.87
M.L. (Louisville, KY) $420
H.L. (Baltimore, MD) $740
L.L. (Bladenboro, NC) $3,485
S.L. (Mt. Vernon, AL) $600
M.L. (Warwick, RI) $100
M.L. (Thomasville, NC) $120
D.M. (Dumas, TX) $3,191.17
M.M. (Northville, MI) $200
D.M. (Forest Park, IL) $1,610
G.M. (Allentown, PA) $2,272
C.M. (Lemoore, CA) $220
B.M. (Lake Charles, LA) $237
T.M. (Virginia Beach, VA) $382.70
L.N. (Jennings, LA) $1,104
R.O. (Alamo, TX) $2,157.33
K.O. (Quincy, IL) $257
R.P. (Newark, NJ) $800
L.P. (Henderson, NC) $816
M.P. (Oak Grove, KY) $737.20
V.P. (Hayward, CA) $531
F.P. (Colorado Springs, CO) $38,848
M.P. (District Heights, MD) $200
C.P. (McKean, PA) $841
L.R. (Aurora, CO) $397
O.R. (Bellwood, IL) $850
L.S. (Bedford, NH) $175
M.S. (Waipahu, HI) $756
S.S. (Bridgerville, DE) $290
D.T. (Pound, WI) $1,716
T.T. (Birmingham, AL) $100
S.T. (Burbank, IL) $200
L.T. (Warner Robbins, GA) $505
C.T. (Lisbon, OH) $1,674
L.W. (Williamston, NC) $562.98
M.W. (Marcy, NY) $140
D.W. (Canton, OH) $190
W.W. (Sanford, FL) $102
G.W. (Accokeek, MD) $1,905
E.W. (Northport, AL) $1,000
M.Z. (New York, NY) $345
TOTAL: $106,443
III. ORDER
The government is directed to file a proposed restitution order within five (5) days of the date of this order consistent with the findings described above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
