United States v. Gupta, 925 F. Supp. 2d 581

Judge deferred restitution determination for up to 90 days under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5); extension granted with waiver due to briefing needs; Goldman Sachs alone petitioned for restitution of its legal fees; court reviewed extensive billing records.
MVRA authorizes restitution for identifiable victims’ pecuniary losses and includes necessary expenses incurred during investigation, prosecution, or proceedings related to the offense.
Goldman Sachs seeks $6,909,137.32 for Sullivan & Cromwell fees tied to Gupta’s conduct and related investigations and prosecutions.
Court accepts the broad Second Circuit understanding of “necessary... other expenses” including attorney fees incurred during investigation and prosecution, if proven by a preponderance and tied to the offense.
Gupta challenges documentation sufficiency, the scope of recoverable expenses, and potential offsets; court evaluates and finds most claimed expenses recoverable while excluding some post-conviction costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MVRA permits recovery of attorneys’ fees as necessary expenses	Gupta argues only government-requested, directly incurred costs are recoverable	Gupta contends fees not tied to specific government requests or the offense are non-recoverable	Yes; fees deemed necessary expenses related to investigation/prosecution are recoverable
Whether parallel SEC case fees are recoverable	Fees in parallel SEC case relate to Gupta’s conduct and are part of the investigation	Separation of SEC and USAO investigations argued; some fees should be excluded	Fees related to parallel investigations are recoverable when linked to participation in the offense investigation
Whether Rajaratnam-related fees are recoverable given Gupta’s acquittals	Fees tied to Rajaratnam investigation are relevant to the Gupta offense	Acquittals on some counts limit recovery	Recoverable; the conspiracy context links Rajaratnam investigation to the Gupta offense under MVRA
Whether documentation suffices and amount is not ‘unduly complicated’ to award	Billing records are sufficiently detailed and credible	Records are voluminous, vague, and require affidavits/separation of reimbursable vs non-reimbursable items	Documentation acceptable; 90% of expenses found necessary and related; small exclusions for non-recoverable costs

United States v. Amato, 540 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008) (broad interpretation of ‘necessary’ expenses under MVRA; expenses related to investigation permitted)
United States v. Papagno, 639 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (limits on recoverable costs; supports broad link between offense and expenses)
United States v. Skowron, 839 F. Supp. 2d 740 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (parallel investigations and recoverability of fees related to the offense)
Battista v. United States, 575 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2009) (reaffirms Amato; supports attaching certain fees to investigation, not subject to arbitrary reductions)
United States v. Boyd, 222 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2000) (victims’ restitution alignment with broader conspiracy damages)