Public Defense

Defendant Kalish was convicted of mail and wire fraud in connection with an advance loan fee scheme. The district court ordered him to pay $ 1.2 million in restitution, and also ordered a $ 3.9 million forfeiture.

On appeal, Kalish claimed that the district court should have reduced the forfeiture amount by the amount of the restitution order. The circuit affirmed, finding that the claim was premature. There is no error in imposing both a forfeiture order and a restitution order, since each is authorized by a separate statute.

However, once ?some payment has been made by way of restitution, a defendant would be in a position to argue that such a payment should be a credit against any then remaining forfeiture amount.? Since the forfeiture amount represents ?ill-gotten gains,? it is ?at least arguable? that any money returned to a victim has reduced the amount of ?ill-gotten gains? remaining in the defendant?s possession. But Kalish did not claim that he had made any restitution payments, so the court did not need to ?decide whether such an argument would prevail.?

Full post as published by Second Circuit Blog on November 26, 2010 (boomark / email).