MEMORANDUM DECISION
T1 Dеfendant David Q. Poulsen appeals from an order of restitution in connection with his conviction for participating in a pyramid scheme, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-6a-4(2) (LexisNexis 2008), on the ground that the order relies on an insufficient causal nexus between his participation in the schemе and the investors' losses. We reverse and remand for a full restitution hearing.
T2 The Pyramid Scheme Act provides that it is a crime to "participate in, organize, establish, promote, or administer any pyramid scheme." Id. § 76-6a-8(1). A pyramid scheme is defined as "any sales device or plan under which a person gives consideration to another person in exchange for compensation or the right to receive compensation which is derived primarily from the introduction of other persons into the sales device or plan rather than from the sale of goods, services, or other property." Id. § 46-6a-2(4). One who "knowingly organizes, establishes, promotes, or administers a pyramid scheme is guilty of a third degree felony." Id. § 76-6a-4(1). One who "participates in a pyramid scheme only by receiving compensation for the introduction of other persons into the pyramid scheme . is guilty of a class B misdemeanor." Id. § 76-6a-4(2).
13 Poulsen pled guilty to two counts of participating in a pyramid scheme, a class B misdemeanor. The amended information recited no facts specific to the case other than dates, and the factual basis for his plea was brief:
On or about ... March 14th of 2008 and September 26th, 2008 this individual solicited funds for a pyramid scheme, the total amount was ... $168,400.
The State later filed a one-sentence written request for restitution accompanied by some documents. One was a letter from an investigаtor with the county attorney's office. The letter stated that one victim had invested $100,000 and received $18,000 in interest, for a net loss of $82,000, and a second victim had invested $90,000 and received $8,600 in interest, for a net loss of $86,400. The State thus sought $168,400 in restitution. Attached to this letter were copies of prоmissory notes and personal checks.
T 4 In response, Poulsen requested that no restitution hearing be held because, in his view, the facts admitted at the plea hearing were, as a matter of law, insufficient to justify an order of restitution. The court denied Poulsen's request. After a brief restitution hearing focused on Poulsen's ability to pay, the court concluded that complete restitution was $168,400 and ordered Poulsen to pay restitution of $30,000 to each victim for a total of $60,000.
15 Poulsen challenges that restitution award. "We will not disturb a trial court's order of restitution unless the trial сourt exceeds the authority prescribed by law or abuses its discretion." State v. Miller,
T6 Poulsen first contends that his conviction of participating in a pyramid scheme does not satisfy the statutory re
17 The Crime Victims Restitution Act allows restitution awards in criminal cases for "pecuniary damages" that result from a defendant's criminal activity. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-882-802(1) (LexisNex-is 2008). "Pecuniary damages" are amоunts "a person could recover in a civil action arising out of the facts or events constituting the defendant's criminal activities...." Id. § 77-382-102(6). We therefore must determine whether the restitution awarded by the court "constitutes pecuniary damages that are recoverable in a civil аction." Miller,
T8 The analysis is not difficult in this case. The Pyramid Scheme Act expressly allows for civil remedies for victims of pyramid schemes: "Any person giving consideration in connection with a pyramid scheme may ... declare his giving of consideration and the related sale or contract for sale void, and may bring a court action to recover the consideration." Utah Code Ann. § 76-62-6(1) (LexisNexis 2008); see also Peterson v. Sunrider Corp.,
19 Poulsen's next two claims on appeal intertwine. He contends that the facts on the record do not support a sufficient causal nexus between his criminal conduct and the victims' lоsses. He further contends that he "was denied even a cursory hearing" and thus "has never had a forum in which he could rebut the state's assertion that he injured third persons in such a way that he should be held financially responsible to them." 2
110 "For the purpose of determining restitution for an offense, the offense shall include any eriminal conduct admitted by the defendant to the sentencing court or to which the defendant agrees to pay restitution." Utah Code Ann. § 77-88a-802(5)(a) (Lexis-Nexis 2008). Criminal conduct includes "any offense of which the defendant is convicted or any other criminal conduсt for which the defendant admits responsibility to the sentencing court with or without an admission of committing the eriminal conduct." Id. § 77-38a-102(2). This provision prohibits an order of restitution "for criminal activities for which the defendant did not admit responsibility, was not convicted, or did not agree to
"[Tlo include an amount in a restitution order, the State must prove that the victim has suffered economic injury and that the injury arose out of the defendant's criminal activities." State v. Brown,
¶ 12 "If the court detеrmines that restitotion is appropriate or inappropriate under [the Crime Victims Restitution Act], the court shall make the reasons for the decision part of the court record." Utah Code Ann. § 77-882-3028). Finally, "[ilf the defendant objects to the imposition, amount, or distribution of the restitution, the court shall allow the defendant a full hearing on the issue." Id. § T?-882a-802(4).
113 These requirements were not fully satisfied here. By pleading guilty to participating in a pyramid scheme, a class B misdemeanor, Poulsen admitted to "receiving compensation for the introduction of other persons intо the pyramid scheme." Id. § 76-6a-4(2). A brief restitution hearing was later held. No witnesses were called. The State proffered the documents earlier submitted to the court. Poulsen's counsel stipulated that the dollar figures proffered by the State "are amounts that victims put into" the scheme, but denied that "those victims lost that at the hands of [Defendant]. There's no facts in the record to support that. ..." He argued that "there has to be a [causal] nexus" between the allegations pled to and the restitution, and declared, "I don't believe that that [$168,400] represents a nexus in any way, shape or form to the injury." The trial court acknowledged that the argument "has some persuasive weight" but ultimately rejected it.
€ 14 Neither the trial court nor the prosecutor made any attempt to describe a causal nexus between Poulsen's participation in a pyrаmid scheme and the victims' losses. Moreover, the only "reasons for the decision" included as "part of the court record," id. § T7-882-8028), are unenlightening: "For the reasons set forth by the State, and for good cause appearing, the motion to dismiss the restitution hearing is hereby denied." The "reаsons set forth by the State" consist of the assertion that "[the facts show that [Poulsen] introduced [the victims] to the pyramid scheme and as a result of that introduction [the victims] sustained pecuniary damages." The State had alleged that Poulsen solicited and received funds from the named victims to invest in a payday loan company; that he did not disclose to the victims that he received 10% interest per month on their investments; and that he received a profit of approximately $42,000 from the victims' money invested in the scheme. However, the State did not explain how thеse facts established a sufficient causal nexus. Furthermore, none of these specific allegations find factual support in the record, because other than a general admission that he solicited funds for a pyramid scheme and received compensation fоr doing so, Poulsen never admitted to them. On the contrary, his counsel has argued throughout that the vie-tims' losses did not arise from Poulsen's criminal acts.
1 15 Despite Poulsen's objection to the imposition of restitution, he was not allowed "a full hearing on the issue." Id. § 77-382-
16 Pоulsen maintains that "[the record is too sparse, the facts too elusive, the liability too attenuated, and the causation too conclu-sory for anyone to be able to establish that the participatory acts admitted to are the source of the putative injury." We would not go that far. Poulsen did stipulate that the victims' net loss was $168,400. And the State produced photocopies of negotiable instruments from which that amount was calculated. But these bare bones proffers do not flesh out "the causal nexus between the [criminal] conduct and thе loss," leaving little basis to determine whether that nexus "is not too attenuated (either factually or temporally)" See State v. Brown,
T 17 Poulsen's resistance was understandable; the stakes were not inconsequential "Upon the court determining that a defendant owes restitution, the clerk of thе court shall enter an order of complete restitution . on the civil judgment docket...." Utah Code Ann. § 77-88a-401(1) (LexisNexis Supp.2012). That order "shall be considered a legal judgment, enforceable under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure." Id. § 77-88a-401(2). Here, the court determined that complete restitution was $168,400 and ordered restitution of $60,000. Poulsen thus walked out of a restitution hearing lasting several minutes subject to a civil judgment of $168,400 without ever having had the opportunity to test the factual underpinnings of that award. 3 We do not believe our Legislature contemplated such cursory process when it adopted the Crime Victims Restitution Act.
118 In sum, where, as here, a factual dispute exists as to whether the victims' losses arose from the defendant's criminal acts, a trial court "exceeds the authority prescribed by law or abusés its discretion," State v. Miller,
T 19 WE CONCUR:; WILLIAM A. THORNE JR. and STEPHEN L. ROTH, Judges.
Notes
. The State acknowledges on appeal that the trial prosecutor argued different theories of civil liability below, but asserts that we may affirm on the alternative grounds discussed above. See Bailey v. Bayles,
. The State contends that any error in denying Poulsen a restitution hearing was invited. Sеe State v. Geukgeuzian,
. The transcript of the hearing is only twelve pages.