United States v. Lazarenko
624 F.3d 1247
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Lazarenko, former Prime Minister of Ukraine, was convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering; Kiritchenko testified for the government under a plea deal.
- The district court ordered Lazarenko to pay Kiritchenko over $19 million in restitution under MVRA and VWPA.
- The government declined to input on the restitution proceedings; the district court treated Kiritchenko as a victim under MVRA/VWPA.
- The issue presented is whether a co-conspirator can be a victim and receive restitution under MVRA/VWPA, especially where the person also participated in the crime.
- The Ninth Circuit reverses the restitution order, holding that absent exceptional circumstances a co-conspirator cannot recover restitution.
- This appeal is part of a broader series of related Lazarenko cases involving forfeiture and restitution challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kiritchenko qualifies as a victim under MVRA/VWPA | Kiritchenko is a victim because he was harmed by the conspiracy’s money laundering scheme. | Kiritchenko, as a co-conspirator, should not be treated as a victim entitled to restitution. | Kiritchenko qualifies as a victim under the statutes’ plain text. |
| Whether a co-conspirator can recover restitution when involved in the crime | Because Kiritchenko was harmed and cooperated, he may recover as a victim. | A co-conspirator cannot recover restitution in the absence of exceptional circumstances. | General rule: a participant in a crime cannot recover restitution; reversal of the district court’s order is required. |
| Whether any exceptional circumstances justify restitution to a co-conspirator | Kiritchenko’s role and vulnerability might fit exceptionalism allowing recovery. | There are no exceptional circumstances here to override the general rule. | No exceptional circumstances exist; restitution order vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brock-Davis, 504 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2007) (restitution definitions and victim scope in MVRA contexts)
- United States v. Sanga, 967 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1992) (co-conspirator restitution and exceptional circumstances analysis)
- United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (restitution to co-conspirators deemed fundamental error in many cases)
- United States v. Weir, 861 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1988) (discussion of whether a participant can be considered a victim)
- United States v. King, 244 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2001) (plain-text reading versus practical application in restitution)
- United States v. Hunter, 618 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010) (MVRA restitution purpose is to restore value to victims, not punish)