11 Cited authorities

United States v. Contorinis
692 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 103 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may order defendant to forfeit proceeds received by others who participated jointly in crime "provided the actions generating those proceeds were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant"
U.S. v. Hurley
63 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) Cited 132 times
Holding that forfeiture judgments against one participant in a conspiracy equal to the reasonably foreseeable criminal proceeds obtained by others in the conspiracy are appropriate
U.S. v. Kalish
409 F. App'x 376 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 35 times
Holding that the imposition of both remedies was not improper, although a defendant might be able to convince the district court that any restitution payments should reduce his forfeiture obligation
U.S. v. Tedder
403 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2005) Cited 43 times
Holding in pertinent part that Libretti remains binding Supreme Court precedent with respect to forfeiture and Sixth Amendment
U.S. v. Battista
575 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 35 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding restitution award of "substantial attorney's fees as a direct result of Battista's criminal acts"
U.S. v. Kurland
718 F. Supp. 2d 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
No. 10 Cr. 69(VM). May 26, 2010. Jonathan R. Streeter, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, Andrew Zenner Michaelson, Boies, Schiller Flexner LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff. Lawrence Iason, Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello Bohrer, P.C., Jef-frey David Rotenberg, Patrick J. Smith, Theodore Theodore, DLA Piper U.S. LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge. On January 27, 2010, defendant Mark Kurland ("Kurland") pled guilty to one count
Castro v. U.S.
248 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (S.D. Fla. 2003) Cited 4 times
Holding that “the government was not required to prove the identity of the [Metropolitan Dade County] agent whom Movant intended to influence”, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666
U.S. v. Elliott
727 F. Supp. 1126 (N.D. Ill. 1989) Cited 7 times
Holding that money deducted as a cost of transaction was never received by a defendant and could not have been spent or utilized, thus it was not forfeitable
Section 3553 - Imposition of a sentence
18 U.S.C. § 3553 Cited 77,008 times 111 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court must consider whether its decision will "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant"
Section 3664 - Procedure for issuance and enforcement of order of restitution
18 U.S.C. § 3664 Cited 18,062 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that government bears "burden of demonstrating" victim loss "as a result of the offense"
Section 3663A - Mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes
18 U.S.C. § 3663A Cited 5,234 times 36 Legal Analyses
Granting these categories of restitution to victims "in any case"

USA v. Gupta

11 Cited authorities

Holding that court may order defendant to forfeit proceeds received by others who participated jointly in crime "provided the actions generating those proceeds were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant"

Holding that forfeiture judgments against one participant in a conspiracy equal to the reasonably foreseeable criminal proceeds obtained by others in the conspiracy are appropriate

Holding that the imposition of both remedies was not improper, although a defendant might be able to convince the district court that any restitution payments should reduce his forfeiture obligation

Holding in pertinent part that Libretti remains binding Supreme Court precedent with respect to forfeiture and Sixth Amendment

Upholding restitution award of "substantial attorney's fees as a direct result of Battista's criminal acts"

Holding that “the government was not required to prove the identity of the [Metropolitan Dade County] agent whom Movant intended to influence”, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666

Holding that money deducted as a cost of transaction was never received by a defendant and could not have been spent or utilized, thus it was not forfeitable

Holding that district court must consider whether its decision will "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant"

Holding that government bears "burden of demonstrating" victim loss "as a result of the offense"

Granting these categories of restitution to victims "in any case"