United States v. Qurashi
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4508
2d Cir.2011Background
- Qurashi fraudulently obtained life insurance payouts by faking his brother Adnan Qurashi's death in 1995 and 1996, then did so again using a fictitious cousin Hassan Khan from 2000 to 2004, prompting a multi-count indictment for conspiracy and mail fraud.
- Insurers MetLife and New York Life paid over $6 million based on Qurashi's fraud; the district court deferred restitution to ensure all insurers were accounted for.
- Qurashi pleaded guilty to the conspiracy and mail fraud charges; the district court ultimately imposed concurrent terms and ordered restitution but delayed its determination.
- The restitution order included prejudgment interest at 4% to compensate for the loss of the use of funds; the 90-day timing rule for determining losses was challenged.
- This appeal concerns whether prejudgment interest may be included in criminal restitution under the MVRA, whether the 90-day deadline was properly applied, and whether the statement of reasons should be amended to reflect the stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest is permissible in criminal restitution under the MVRA. | Government argues prejudgment interest is authorized to fully compensate losses. | Qurashi contends prejudgment interest overcompensates and requires tracking of funds. | Yes; prejudgment interest is permissible to ensure full compensation. |
| Whether the 90-day deadline for finalizing losses was violated. | Government says delay allowed under Dolan v. United States. | Qurashi claims prejudice from delay. | District court valid; no demonstrated prejudice. |
| Whether the district court should remand to amend the Statement of Reasons to reflect the stipulation. | Government does not object to remand to correct reasons. | Remand needed to reflect the stipulation. | Remand granted for limited purpose to amend the Statement of Reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boccagna v. United States, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006) (flexible value concept; restitution to fully compensate losses)
- Gordon v. United States, 393 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2004) (prejudgment interest as loss of use; not always abuse when liquid assets exist)
- City of Milwaukee v. Cement Div., Nat'l Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1995) (prejudgment interest as part of compensating victims)
- United States v. Simmonds, 235 F.3d 826 (3d Cir. 2000) (MVRA purpose to fully compensate victims)
- Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010) (90-day deadline for restitution; court retains power to order restitution)
- United States v. Nucci, 364 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2004) (limits on restitution when not dependent on loss value)
- United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 1994) (support for prejudgment interest rationale)
- United States v. Patty, 992 F.2d 1045 (10th Cir. 1993) (prejudgment interest precedents in MVRA context)
- United States v. Rochester, 898 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1990) (restitution principles in MVRA context)