United States v. Mei Juan Zhang
789 F.3d 214
1st Cir.2015Background
- Defendants Mei Ya Zhang and Mei Juan Zhang pled guilty to harboring undocumented workers, money laundering conspiracy, and filing false employer tax returns; both managed Chinese restaurants in Maine.
- Their crimes resulted in underpayment of federal employment taxes to the IRS.
- The government seized $18,529.66 from Waterville-related bank accounts under a forfeiture notice (18 U.S.C. § 982).
- At sentencing the district court ordered mandatory restitution under the MVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, requiring payments to the IRS: $88,087 (Mei Ya) and $54,288 (Mei Juan).
- Mei Juan challenged the restitution because (1) the United States is not a “victim” under the MVRA, and (2) the restitution should have been offset by the forfeited bank funds.
- The First Circuit affirmed: (1) the United States may be a "victim" under § 3663A, and (2) forfeiture proceeds do not offset restitution unless the victim actually received those proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Zhang) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States can be a “victim” under the MVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3663A) | The MVRA contemplates the United States as a victim (see § 3664(i)); "victim" includes governmental agencies in context. | "Person" or "victim" should not be read to include the sovereign; Dictionary Act and ordinary meaning exclude government. | The United States may be a "victim" under § 3663A; district court correctly ordered restitution to the IRS. |
| Whether restitution may be offset by the value of property forfeited to the Attorney General (18 U.S.C. § 982 proceeds) | MVRA requires full restitution and does not permit offset by forfeiture proceeds not received by the victim; restitution is in addition to forfeiture. | Restitution should be reduced by forfeiture value to avoid giving the government an impermissible windfall. | No offset permitted where the victim (IRS) did not receive forfeiture proceeds; district court properly refused to offset. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (contextual interpretation governs whether Dictionary Act definitions apply)
- United States v. Joseph, 743 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2014) (MVRA prohibits offset by forfeited proceeds not received by victim)
- United States v. Ekanem, 383 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2004) (interpreting § 3664(i) to include the United States as a victim)
- United States v. Bright, 353 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2004) (refusing offset of restitution by forfeiture proceeds not paid to victims)
- United States v. Lincoln, 277 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2002) (MVRA victim-definition analysis)
- United States v. Mateos, 623 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2010) (same conclusion on government as victim)
- United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (1947) (observing that "person" does not ordinarily include sovereign)
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) (statutory interpretation should give effect to every provision)