United States v. Sushil Sheth, 924 F.3d 425

Dr. Sushil Sheth pleaded guilty to health-care fraud and agreed in a plea agreement to forfeit $13 million in assets; the government agreed that forfeited proceeds would be credited against any restitution judgment.
The government seized funds from four Harris Bank accounts in 2007; those funds remained in Marshals Service custody in an interest-bearing account and accrued about $225,000 in interest by the time of forfeiture in 2010.
The district court ordered $12,376,310 in restitution to Medicare and private insurers; the parties later disputed whether the government gave Sheth credit for all forfeited funds (including accrued interest) toward that restitution.
The government mistakenly assessed equity in Sheth’s primary residence (Burr Ridge) when it relinquished the house to Sheth’s ex-wife; corrected mortgage figures showed net equity, and the government offered Sheth credit for half the net equity (about $107,773), which he declined.
On remand following an earlier Seventh Circuit decision requiring discovery and an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Sheth credit for the $225,000 interest but credited only half the 2010-based net equity for the residence; Sheth appealed both rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sheth)	Defendant's Argument (United States)	Held
Whether accrued interest on Harris Bank accounts seized pre-forfeiture must be credited against restitution	The accrued $225,000 interest was part of the forfeited funds and, per the plea agreement, must be applied to restitution	Sovereign immunity/statutory rules mean government need not pay or account for post-seizure interest absent statute or express term	Reversed: interest that had accrued and was forfeited must be credited to restitution under the parties' plea agreement
Proper valuation date for equity credit in Burr Ridge residence	Use later market sale price (2015) or at least a 2011 valuation (when property was relinquished) to compute Sheth’s credit	Use 2010 appraisal (closest to relinquishment/likely sale date) and give Sheth half the net equity relating back to 2011	Affirmed in part: district court’s use of 2010 appraisal and award of half the net equity (as the government proposed) was reasonable; alternate 2011 valuation argument forfeited

United States v. Swanson, 394 F.3d 520 (7th Cir.) (distinguishes restitution and forfeiture as loss-based vs. ill-gotten-gains remedies)
Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (interest on interpleaded/deposited funds follows the principal)
Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir.) (interest on deposit accounts is property of the owner)
United States v. $277,000 U.S. Currency, 69 F.3d 1491 (9th Cir.) (seized property and accretions follow ownership)
United States v. Kingsley, 851 F.2d 16 (1st Cir.) (court-ordered interest-bearing treatment of seized funds enforces expectations in plea/agreements)
United States v. De Ortiz, 910 F.2d 376 (7th Cir.) (title to forfeited property relates back only upon forfeiture)
United States v. Rand Motors, 305 F.3d 770 (7th Cir.) (declines to decide abstract duty to pay interest on returned seized funds)
United States v. Adame-Hernandez, 763 F.3d 818 (7th Cir.) (plea agreement interpretation reviewed de novo)
United States v. Brown, 779 F.3d 486 (7th Cir.) (plea agreements are contracts)
United States v. Collins, 503 F.3d 616 (7th Cir.) (factual findings about plea agreements reviewed for clear error)
Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Estate of McMurray, 274 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir.) (turnover order legal questions reviewed de novo)