United States v. Robert Narvett, 2:21-cr-00050

Background

Defendant Robert Narvett ran a Ponzi-style investment fraud from at least 2014 through 2019, obtaining and attempting to obtain over $1.5 million and also taking unauthorized loans in victims’ names.
Narvett pled guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of promoting money laundering; Judge Griesbach sentenced him to 180 months and ordered restitution of the undisputed $1,003,222.45, leaving additional restitution to be determined.
The case was referred to the magistrate judge under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(6) after forensic accounting likely understated total losses; U.S. Probation recommended $2,049,496.63 in restitution and the court received ~500 pages of victim documentation.
The MVRA requires full restitution for each victim’s loss as determined by the court; the government bears the burden to prove each victim’s loss by a preponderance of the evidence.
The magistrate held an evidentiary hearing, evaluated authentication of victim documents and testimony, accepted some victim declarations, rejected claims lacking adequate authentication, and disallowed certain expectation-damage items (e.g., impermissible interest claims).
The magistrate recommended total restitution of $1,683,068.23 allocated among listed victims (detailed in the recommendation).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Inclusion of transactions predating indictment period	Losss in a Ponzi scheme crystallize when scheme collapses, so pre-indictment transfers may be compensable	Pre-indictment transactions fall outside the indictment period and should be excluded	Court rejected Narvett's temporal-exclusion argument; losses are measured by when victims actually sustained loss (collapse) and may include pre-indictment transfers
Payments to/through Narvett’s son	Transfers to the son were part of the scheme and should be counted as losses to victims	Transactions to the son should be excluded as not direct payments to defendant	Court held such transfers are within the scheme: the son was used as a strawman/pass-through and was also a victim, so those transactions are included
Authentication and sufficiency of victim documentation	Government relied on submitted documents and victim declarations to prove losses; hearsay can be used in sentencing contexts	Narvett challenged unauthenticated documents and unsigned/unsworn submissions	Court required authentication (testimony or sworn declaration); denied claims lacking foundation (e.g., Anderson, Cole, Thern, Romenesko largely rejected absent concessions)
Recovery of interest/expectation damages and ancillary fees	Some victims sought unpaid contractual interest and other fees as part of losses	Defendant argued such amounts are expectation damages or unsupported and not compensable under MVRA	Court allowed prejudgment losses that represent actual loss of funds but rejected impermissible expectation damages (denied Meshke’s claimed unpaid interest and other unsupported fees)

Key Cases Cited

Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010) (district court may order restitution beyond the 90-day statutory deadline in appropriate circumstances)
United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2018) (government must prove restitution amount by preponderance; restitution limited to actual losses caused by the offense)
United States v. Belk, 435 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2006) (wire-fraud restitution must consider the overall scheme, not only the specific overt act)
United States v. Shepard, 269 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2001) (restitution under MVRA limited to losses on counts of conviction; prejudgment interest treatment explained)
United States v. Orillo, 733 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2013) (limits on restitution scope and proof requirements)
United States v. Flaschberger, 408 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2005) (losses incurred before a charged scheme may be excluded under appropriate circumstances)
United States v. Ferdman, 779 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2015) (importance of authenticated evidence for restitution findings)
United States v. George, 403 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2005) (restitution must be based on victim’s loss rather than defendant’s gain)
United States v. Robers, 698 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2012) (discussing calculation of losses and prejudgment interest in restitution)
United States v. Qurashi, 634 F.3d 699 (2d Cir. 2011) (distinguishing compensable losses from expectation damages)