United States v. Navarrete, 667 F.3d 886

Navarrete was convicted of bank fraud and related offenses for bribing a LaSalle Bank security official to obtain contracts for his company.
The district court sentenced Navarrete to 96 months and ordered restitution equal to the bank's loss, plus forfeiture including proceeds and property.
The government planned to convey forfeited assets to the bank's successor, Bank of America, potentially moot-ing the restitution order.
The district court calculated restitution based on Navarrete's gain rather than the bank's exact loss, citing difficulty in precise loss quantification.
The government asserted the loss should reflect the bank's actual loss, while Navarrete challenged the method and scope of the restitution award.
The Seventh Circuit reversed the restitution order in part, holding that restitution must be based on the victim's loss and that the amount could not stand as issued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must restitution be based on the victim's loss	Navarrete’s gain equaled bank loss; restitution should reflect actual loss.	Loss could be approximated by Navarrete's gain when loss is hard to determine.	Restitution cannot be based on Navarrete's gain; must be limited to the victim's loss.
How should the bank's loss be determined for restitution	The loss can be measured by comparing costs and damages against a lower-cost bidder (Ingersoll Rand).	Loss estimation is uncertain; the court may rely on alternative methods or decline restitution if complex.	Judicial responsibility to determine victim's loss; the district court erred by not properly quantifying it and thus cannot sustain restitution as ordered.
Relationship between forfeiture and restitution	Forfeiture assets may satisfy the victim's losses, making restitution redundant.	Forfeiture and restitution are distinct and may both apply, creating punitive consequences.	Restitution cannot stand as ordered; the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to resolve restitution consistent with victim's loss.

United States v. Emerson, 128 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1997) (forfeiture and restitution may be distinct but both punitive)
United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2011) (restitution principles in fraud cases govern loss measurement)
United States v. McGinty, 610 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2010) (forfeiture and restitution as separate penalties)
United States v. Baker, 227 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2000) (criminal forfeiture in personam and related restitution context)
United States v. George, 403 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2005) (restitution must be based on victim's loss; not the defendant's gain)
United States v. Galloway, 509 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2007) (restitution framework and victim-loss calculation guidance)