Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Forecloses Reimbursement for Certain Internal Investigations Under Mandatory Victims Restitution Act
On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lagos v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), that corporate victims of criminal offenses cannot recover expenses incurred from internal investigations that the federal government has neither requested nor required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §3663A (MVRA). In its decision, the Court declined to address whether, going forward, such victims can recover costs from internal investigations initiated at the government's behest under the statute. Prior to this holding, a number of federal courts held that corporate victims were eligible for restitution for the costs incurred from their internal investigations and referrals to law enforcement — regardless of whether the government requested or required such investigations. These courts ordered restitution to reflect these costs on grounds that internal investigations: 1) are a foreseeable result of the crimes enumerated in the MVRA; and 2) provide invaluable assistance to government investigations and proceedings.
However, the Court's unanimous decision in Lagos effectively overruled these decisions and poses a setback for companies victimized by criminal conduct in determining what steps to take in reaction to the disclosure of the conduct. The companies likely have no choice but to conduct exhaustive internal investigations to identify the scope of the crime and to receive cooperation credit pursuant to the recently-updated Department of Justice Manual. See, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual §9-28.000, Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations. In doing so, they should be aware of the real possibility that they cannot recover the costs incurred from these investigations through restitution and may have to pursue the funds solely through civil litigation. Should companies elect to minimize costs by declining to investigate internally — or by conducting a small-scale investigation — they risk the full extent of the crime remaining undetected and forego the ability to earn cooperation credit with the government. Moreover, public companies face the added dilemma of having to explain to their shareholders what steps they took to investigate the conduct and prevent future incidents, while also being mindful of the fiscal consequences of full-scale investigative work that might not be reimbursed.
The Emergence of Federal Restitution
Restitution is intended to restore a victim, to the extent possible, to "the position he occupied before sustaining injury." United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir. 2006). When a restitution statute applies, the government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of loss that a victim sustained. However, a restitution award "need only to be a reasonable estimate of the victim's actual losses" and courts must resolve uncertainties in favor of the victim. See, United States. v. Donaghy, 570 F. Supp. 2d 411, 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
This premium content is locked for Business Crimes Bulletin subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.