United States v. Lazarenko
2010 WL 4323404
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Lazarenko, former Prime Minister of Ukraine, was convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
- Kiritchenko sought restitution under MVRA and VWPA in a proceeding separate from sentencing;
- District court held Kiritchenko was a victim and ordered Lazarenko to pay over $19 million in restitution;
- Government did not oppose restitution; Lazarenko appealed the restitution order.
- Court addresses whether a co-conspirator can recover restitution and defines the governing rule.
- Ninth Circuit reverses and vacates the restitution order, holding no restitution to co-conspirators absent exceptional circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a co-conspirator recover restitution under MVRA in the absence of exceptional circumstances? | Kiritchenko as victim should be entitled to restitution. | Co-conspirators should not recover restitution under MVRA. | General rule: co-conspirators cannot recover restitution absent exceptional circumstances. |
| Does the MVRA victim definition allow restitution to a co-conspirator who was harmed while participating? | Plain text includes those directly harmed by the offense, regardless of conspiratorial status. | Restitution to co-conspirators would be inappropriate and problematic as a matter of policy. | Although plain text could permit, the court limits recovery to avoid improper redistribution; exceptional circumstances required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sanga, 967 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1992) (co-conspirator restitution limited; helps define exceptional cases)
- United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (restitution to co-conspirator deemed fundamental error; generally disallowed)
- United States v. Weir, 861 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1988) (suggests it would be improper to consider a participant as a victim)
- United States v. King, 244 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2001) (plain-text restitution analysis not controlling when outcomes are absurd)
- United States v. Brock-Davis, 504 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2007) (definition of 'victim' under MVRA; breadth in scope)