Mandatory restitution was independently imposed

Plain-English summary

This Chief Counsel email concludes that a criminal restitution case was not governed by Westbrooks. The Title 18 conduct underlying the conviction covered all years for which restitution was ordered. The offense fell within 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1), making restitution mandatory under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The court therefore had authority to impose restitution as an independent part of the sentence, and the judgment showed that it did so.

Ruling snapshot

• Question: Was the restitution order independently authorized under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act?
• Outcome: Advice given: yes, and Westbrooks did not apply.
• Key authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1); UILC 6201.01-06

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2020100911062544
UILC: 6201.01-06

Number: 202118017
Release Date: 5/7/2021
From: ----------------------
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:06:25 AM
To: -------------------------------------
Cc: ----------------
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Form 14104 - ---------------------- SA ------------

This is not a Westbrooks case. The activity for which the defendant was convicted under Title 18 (----------) embraces conduct for all of the years for which restitution was ordered, and offense for which the defendant was convicted is described in 18 USC 3663A(c)(1). Restitution was therefore mandatory under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act and the court thus had the power to impose it as an independent portion of the sentence. The court did so, as shown on p. -- of the judgment.

Please call if you have any further questions about this matter.