Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v. United States District Court
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7823
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Stoliar convicted in 2015 on multiple counts related to false generation of U.S. biodiesel credits and related frauds; Canada sought restitution arguing it was a victim with a claim to $1,233,065.32 CAD; district court denied Canada’s restitution petition; CVRA mandamus petition reviewed for abuse of discretion or legal error, not for substantive CVRA rights alone; MVRA governs restitution for offenses against property and allows profits of fraud schemes to be recovered; record shows parallel but not causally linked Canada subsidy scheme and U.S. RIN scheme; petition denied on the merits; question whether Canada is a “crime victim” under CVRA remains open but unnecessary to decide here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CVRA mandamus can order restitution relief independent of substantive MVRA statutes | Canada seeks CVRA relief tied to MVRA restitution | CVRA confirms right to restitution but MVRA sets monetary base | Denied; petition denied; CVRA not substantive basis for restitution on its own |
| Whether MVRA allows restitution to Canada for Canada subsidies | Subsidies were part of the same overarching fraud | Canada subsidies are not causally linked to U.S. RIN fraud | Denied; not sufficiently related to Stoliar’s U.S. scheme |
| Whether the loss amount is proven by preponderance of the evidence | Loss need only be proven by preponderance | District court already weighed loss allegations | Noted; standard governs MVRA restitution calculation (preponderance) |
| Whether Canada qualifies as a “crime victim” under CVRA in this context | Canada may be victim under CVRA | Open question; not reached given disposition | Not reached; petition denied on other grounds |
| Whether Canada’s claim is sufficiently related to Stoliar’s charged or proven scheme | Canada's subsidies tied to the same misrepresentation of production | Schemes were parallel, separate, and not causally linked | Not sufficiently related to be part of the same scheme; not recoverable under MVRA |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booth, 309 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2002) (restitution may cover losses from the entire scheme)
- United States v. Grice, 319 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2003) (uncharged conduct within fraud scheme recoverable)
- United States v. Riley, 143 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1998) (harm must be closely related to the scheme)
- Gamma Tech Indus., 265 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2001) (loss cannot be too far removed from offense conduct)
- Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2006) (CVRA mandamus review standard seeks abuse of discretion or legal error)
- Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977) (multifactor balancing not applied in CVRA mandamus petitions)