United States v. Sayyed, 862 F.3d 615

Rafi Sayyed pled guilty to mail fraud for steering contracts for kickbacks and was ordered to pay $940,450 in mandatory restitution; as of late 2015 he still owed ~$650,234.25.
The United States sought to satisfy the restitution judgment by issuing discovery citations to Vanguard and Aetna to locate Sayyed’s retirement accounts.
The government moved for turnover orders to collect approximately $327,000 in non-exempt retirement funds.
Sayyed argued the funds were "earnings" under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) and thus protected by the 25% garnishment cap.
The district court found Sayyed had an unconditional present right to withdraw the accounts, concluded the funds were not CCPA "earnings," and ordered turnover with escrow for tax consequences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether retirement account funds are "earnings" under the CCPA and thus subject to the 25% garnishment cap	Sayyed: retirement funds (funded from wages) qualify as "earnings" and are protected by the 25% cap; court must await his future distribution election	Government: CCPA protects only periodic payments; government may reach defendant's present property interests, including lump-sum access	Court: Funds are not "earnings" for CCPA purposes because CCPA protects periodic payments, and government may seize defendant's present unconditional withdrawal right
Whether the government must wait until defendant retires/chooses payment form before enforcement	Sayyed: court should wait until retirement age or election to determine if distributions will be periodic (thus protected)	Government: restitution is a lien on present property rights; stepping into defendant's shoes lets government exercise present unconditional rights	Court: Government need not wait; it may enforce against defendant's current unconditional right to withdraw funds

United States v. Lee, 659 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2011) (periodic retirement payments qualify as CCPA "earnings")
Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974) (CCPA protects periodic compensation needed for regular support; not every asset traceable to wages is "earnings")
United States v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713 (1985) (judgment liens reach every property interest a taxpayer has; government steps into debtor's shoes)
Maher v. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, 506 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2007) (turnover orders are reviewed de novo as final judgments)
United States v. Kollintzas, 501 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2007) (restitution lien treated like a tax lien)