United States v. Thompson
792 F.3d 273
2d Cir.2015Background
- Defendant Jamie Gene Thompson, convicted of access device fraud for stealing $65,143.47 from the Eardensohns, returned $30,400 to them before sentencing.
- The Eardensohns’ banks (Wells Fargo and Citibank) reimbursed the Eardensohns for much of the remaining loss, leaving the victims fully compensated and the banks out $43,284.47 of the total.
- At sentencing the parties agreed total theft was $65,143.47; agreed Thompson’s prior repayments ($30,400) should offset restitution but disputed how to allocate that offset among victims and reimbursing banks.
- The district court credited Thompson’s $30,400 against his debt to the Eardensohns only, ordered $21,859 to the Eardensohns (deemed satisfied), $33,767.97 to Wells Fargo, and $9,516.50 to Citibank — producing a combined payment obligation that exceeded Thompson’s net theft by $8,541.
- Thompson appealed, arguing the MVRA caps restitution at victims’ net losses (after returned property) and that third-party reimbursers are not "victims" whose losses expand restitution liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether third-party reimbursers (banks) are "victims" under the MVRA such that defendant must pay them notwithstanding repayments defendant already returned to the actual victims | Government: §3664 requires restitution to providers who reimbursed victims and payments to victims must be made before payments to providers, so banks may receive direct restitution even if defendant already repaid victims | Thompson: MVRA caps restitution at the victims' actual losses net of property returned; third-party payors are not "victims" and cannot expand defendant's liability | Court: Third-party payors are not "victims" under §3663A; restitution is capped at victims' net losses after returned property; banks cannot enlarge defendant's MVRA liability |
| How to apply defendant's prior repayments to restitution calculation | Government: Repayments paid directly to victims count only against defendant's obligation to victims, not against amounts owed to third-party reimbursers | Thompson: Repayments should reduce total restitution liability first (i.e., subtract from total loss), and remaining obligation should be allocated pro rata to reimbursers | Held: Prior repayments reduce defendant's total restitution under §3663A(b); remaining amount ($34,743.47) to be allocated pro rata to banks |
| Whether §3664(f)(1)(B) and §3664(j)(1) allow increasing defendant's restitution to cover what third parties paid the victim | Government: Procedural provisions allow restitution to be paid to providers and do not limit amounts once providers have been reimbursed | Thompson: §3664 is procedural and cannot trump substantive MVRA limits in §3663A; third-party payments do not increase defendant’s substantive liability | Held: §3664 is procedural; it cannot expand substantive MVRA liability; third-party compensation cannot increase restitution beyond victim's net loss |
| Whether district court’s restitution order that results in defendant paying more than net loss was permissible | Government: No unfairness; victims voluntarily received defendant's checks so funds belong to victims to dispose of | Thompson: Ordering defendant to pay more than he stole violates MVRA cap on victims’ actual losses | Held: District court erred; restitution must be limited to victims' actual loss net of returned property, so order vacated and remanded for recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir.) (standard of review and MVRA windfall principle)
- United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.) (de novo review for legal questions on restitution)
- United States v. Maynard, 743 F.3d 374 (2d Cir.) (MVRA victim definition and §3664 procedural role)
- United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.) (calculation of reimbursable loss under MVRA)
- Robers v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1854 (U.S.) (proximate-harm limitation on MVRA "victim")
- United States v. Golomb, 811 F.2d 787 (2d Cir.) (restitution payable to bank limited by victim's loss)
- United States v. Frazier, 651 F.3d 899 (8th Cir.) (third-party compensation shifts payment but does not increase restitution)
- United States v. Cliatt, 338 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.) (procedural §3664 does not expand substantive restitution)
- United States v. Shepard, 269 F.3d 884 (7th Cir.) (third-party who reimbursed victim not a separate "victim")
- United States v. Qurashi, 634 F.3d 699 (2d Cir.) (MVRA goal to make victims whole)
- United States v. Coriaty, 300 F.3d 244 (2d Cir.) (restitution limited to actual loss)
- United States v. Cuti, 778 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.) (§3664(j)(1) permits direct payment to third party that paid victim)