950 F. Supp. 2d 426
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Adorno pled guilty to bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) relating to HPD contracts.
- The City seeks MVRA restitution equal to 25% of Adorno’s salary for 2008–2009.
- MVRA obligates restitution for certain offenses to the victims of the offense of conviction.
- The court must determine whether the offense is an offense against property or involves fraud/ deceit.
- Even if restitution is eligible, the amount must reflect actual loss and should not be speculative or protracted to resolve.
- Court acknowledges potential relevance of honest services fraud but clarifies it is not the offense of conviction here and cannot substitute for the MVRA analysis.
- Ultimately denies the restitution request for both statutory and practical reasons: the offense is not an offense against property, there is no proven identifiable loss, and the calculation would be too uncertain or burdensome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bribery under § 666(a)(1)(B) is an offense against property | City: salary/property loss due to bribery | Adorno: not an offense against property under MVRA | No; bribery here is not an offense against property under MVRA. |
| Whether the City suffered an identifiable loss causally linked to the offense | City suffered a loss via reduced honest services value | No proven loss attributable to offense of conviction | Not proven; need identifiable loss causally connected to conviction. |
| Whether MVRA restitution can be awarded given calculation uncertainties | Award 25% of salary reflects loss | Loss amount too arbitrary; complex facts | Discretionary denial; restitution not awarded due to complexity and lack of proven loss. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2011) (honest services/ bribery interplay; salary may be 'property' but depends on theory of loss)
- United States v. Battista, 575 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2009) (open question if 'committed by fraud or deceit' refers to elements or manner; restitution viable under MVRA or VWPA depending on theory)
- United States v. Archer, 671 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2011) (MVRA limited to victims of offense of conviction; guides interpretation)
- Sapoznik v. United States, 161 F.3d 1117 (7th Cir. 1998) (restitution amount focus; efficiency concerns acknowledged)
- United States v. Zangari, 677 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2012) (allows withholding restitution when complex factual disputes would burden sentencing)