Home / Opinion / Sentencing — restitution

Sentencing — restitution

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit


Sentencing — restitution

Where the defendant’s restitution was limited to his specific participation in the tax fraud scheme, the order is affirmed.

“Yair contends that the restitution order is excessive. First, he argues that it charges him for the conduct of others, instead of limiting the award to losses attributable to his specific conduct in furtherance of the scheme. But notable in the statutory language is the expansiveness of restitution authorized for crimes involving a ‘scheme, conspiracy, or pattern.’ An individual convicted of such a crime is jointly and severally liable for the losses caused by his or her co-conspirators. See, e.g., United States v. Dokich, 614 F.3d 314, 318 (7th Cir. 2010). For this reason, we have squarely rejected the theory that co-conspirator restitution liability under the MVRA is as limited as Yair contends. Moreover, the PSR and the district court limited Yair’s liability to losses resulting from his actions and from the actions of those he controlled or worked with regularly. Thus, the restitution order here is linked to his specific participation in the scheme, even if we were to accept Yair’s limited view of co-conspirator restitution liability.”


13-1349 U.S. v. Berkowitz


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kendall, J., Flaum, J.

Leave a Comment