{
  "id": "RS22708",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS22708",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 606471,
      "date": "2019-10-15",
      "retrieved": "2019-10-21T22:21:39.838183",
      "title": "Restitution in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch",
      "summary": "Restitution endeavors to restore victims to the place where they stood when they became victims of crime. It seeks to make them whole and no more. In the case of a corporate or affluent defendant, victim restitution can be substantial; in some cases its value may be largely symbolic; in yet other cases it is irrelevant. Federal prosecutors collect roughly $1 billion a year for the victims of federal crimes. Yet prosecutors will likely never secure more than $1 out every $10 owed, and federal courts rarely, if ever, order restitution from the defendants convicted of the most commonly prosecuted federal crimes.\nRestitution in federal criminal cases is a matter of statute. A handful of statutes identify the victims who are eligible to receive restitution; what criminal convictions may trigger an obligation to pay restitution; the losses for which victims may be compensated; and the procedure by which restitution is ordered and enforced.\nAs a general rule, a victim is a person who is physically injured, or who suffers a property loss, as the proximate result of a qualifying offense. A victim may also be someone named as a beneficiary in a plea bargain or in a condition of probation or supervised release. \nFederal crimes of violence, fraud, or property loss will usually require a sentencing court to order restitution. A court also may order restitution following a conviction for any other crime in the federal criminal code, in accordance with a plea bargain, or as a condition of probation or supervised release.\nRestitution orders ordinarily must cover the full extent of a victim\u2019s losses that are the proximate result of the defendant\u2019s qualifying crime of conviction, no more and no less, even though the defendant may never be able to make full restitution.\nRestitution in federal criminal cases is part of the sentencing process. The Probation Service prepares a pre-sentencing report that includes a preliminary assessment of what restitution, if any, is appropriate. The parties are free to challenge and supplement the report. The government must establish the existence and extent of any right to victim restitution by a preponderance of the evidence. Both the government and the defendant may appeal the court\u2019s restitution determinations. A victim may appeal such determinations using mandamus.\nThe Department of Justice, acting on behalf of a victim, may enforce a restitution order in the manner it uses to collect fines or by \u201call other available and reasonable means.\u201d Victims may secure a lien in their own names against the defendant\u2019s property in order to secure restitution and they may bring other civil actions in their own names against the defendant.\nThe courts do not agree on whether the abatement doctrine cuts off unfulfilled obligations under a restitution order. The abatement doctrine provides that when a defendant dies while his or her appeal is still pending the law treats the defendant\u2019s indictment and conviction as though they had never happened. The conviction is vacated and the indictment dismissed.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22708",
          "sha1": "7f839728602aeeb21a132a59468d9217e940d69f",
          "filename": "files/20191015_RS22708_7f839728602aeeb21a132a59468d9217e940d69f.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22708",
          "sha1": "f52936ae717d471c22ed4a2f8376f7cc1c5b3c64",
          "filename": "files/20191015_RS22708_f52936ae717d471c22ed4a2f8376f7cc1c5b3c64.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 432543,
      "date": "2014-07-11",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:16:48.405584",
      "title": "Restitution in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch",
      "summary": "Federal courts may not order a defendant to pay restitution to the victims of his or her crimes unless authorized by statute to do so. Several statutes supply such authorization. For instance, federal courts are statutorily required to order victim restitution when sentencing a defendant either for an offense against property, including fraud or deceit, proscribed in Title 18 of the United States Code or for a crime of violence. The obligation exists even if the defendant is indigent, and restitution must take the form of in-kind, lump sum, or installment payments. Federal courts are permitted, but not required, to order victim restitution when sentencing a defendant for any offense proscribed in Title 18 for which restitution is not required. Federal courts are permitted to order victim restitution when sentencing a defendant for various controlled substance and aviation safety offenses. In addition, a federal court may order restitution pursuant to a plea bargain or as a condition of probation or supervised release. \nAs a general rule, restitution is available only to victims who have suffered a physical injury or financial loss as a direct and proximate consequence of the crime of conviction, and only to the extent of their losses. Several provisions governing restitution following conviction for particular crimes permit awards for types of losses that might not otherwise be permitted under the general restitution provisions. For example, the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 (18 U.S.C. 3663(b)(6)) authorizes restitution orders to compensate victims for the cost of remediating the intended or actual harm caused by certain identity theft violations. The courts are divided over the extent to which a defendant convicted of possession of child pornography may be ordered to make restitution to the child depicted in the material.\nWhen restitution is authorized, a probation officer gathers information from victims, the government, the defendant, and other sources for a report to the court. The parties receive copies of the report and may contest its recommendations. The court has considerable discretion as to the manner and scheduling of restitution payments, but the authority may not be delegated to probation or prison officials. Furthermore, the order must provide for full restitution for all victims unless the sheer number of victims or the complications of a given case preclude such an order.\nUnder the abatement doctrine, when a defendant dies before his or her appeal has become final, the law treats the indictment and conviction as though they had never happened. The conviction is vacated and the indictment dismissed. The courts do not agree on whether the doctrine also reaches unfulfilled obligations under a restitution order.\nThis report is an abridged version of CRS Report RL34138, Restitution in Federal Criminal Cases\u2014without footnotes, citations to most authorities, or appendixes found in the longer report. Related reports include CRS Report RL33679, Crime Victims\u2019 Rights Act: A Summary and Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. 3771, available in abridged form as CRS Report RS22518, Crime Victims\u2019 Rights Act: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 3771.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22708",
          "sha1": "0c404071df1f6547689ecb50e4ec1062f743865e",
          "filename": "files/20140711_RS22708_0c404071df1f6547689ecb50e4ec1062f743865e.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22708",
          "sha1": "fc44eab390e98febce49bdeb785e9674fd49cca1",
          "filename": "files/20140711_RS22708_fc44eab390e98febce49bdeb785e9674fd49cca1.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc810975/",
      "id": "RS22708_2007Aug22",
      "date": "2007-08-22",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Restitution in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20070822_RS22708_84f6b6dced5ada94a048efa85fdf357e20887b9d.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20070822_RS22708_84f6b6dced5ada94a048efa85fdf357e20887b9d.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}