18 U.S.C. § 2327

Mandatory restitution

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty authorized by law, the court shall order restitution to all victims of any offense for which an enhanced penalty is provided under section 2326.(b)Scope and Nature of Order.—(1)Directions.—The order of restitution under this section shall direct the defendant to pay to the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim’s losses as determined by the court pursuant to paragraph (2).(2)Enforcement.—An order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664 in the same manner as an order under section 3663A.(3)Definition.—For purposes of this subsection, the term “full amount of the victim’s losses” means all losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.(4)Order mandatory.—(A) The issuance of a restitution order under this section is mandatory.(B) A court may not decline to issue an order under this section because of—(i) the economic circumstances of the defendant; or(ii) the fact that a victim has, or is entitled to, receive compensation for his or her injuries from the proceeds of insurance or any other source.(c)Victim Defined.—In this section, the term “victim” has the meaning given that term in section 3663A(a)(2).(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title XXV, § 250002(a)(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2082; amended Pub. L. 104–132, title II, § 205(e), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1232; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(n), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3502; Pub. L. 105–184, § 5, June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 520.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–184, § 5(1), substituted “to all victims of any offense for which an enhanced penalty is provided under section 2326” for “for any offense under this chapter”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–184, § 5(2), added subsec. (c) and struck out former subsec. (c) which read as follows:

“(c) Definition.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘victim’ includes the individual harmed as a result of a commission of a crime under this chapter, including, in the case of a victim who is incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or representative of the victim’s estate, another family member, or any other person appointed as suitable by the court, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such representative or guardian.”

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(e)(1), inserted “or 3663A” after “3663”.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(e)(2)(A), reenacted heading without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The order of restitution under this section shall direct that—

“(A) the defendant pay to the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim’s losses as determined by the court, pursuant to paragraph (3); and

“(B) the United States Attorney enforce the restitution order by all available and reasonable means.”

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(e)(2)(B), struck out “by victim” after “Enforcement” in heading and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “An order of restitution may be enforced by a victim named in the order to receive the restitution as well as by the United States Attorney, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action.”

Subsec. (b)(4)(C), (D). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(e)(2)(C), struck out subpars. (C) and (D), which related to court’s consideration of economic circumstances of defendant in determining schedule of payment of restitution orders, and court’s entry of nominal restitution awards where economic circumstances of defendant do not allow for payment of restitution, respectively.

Subsec. (b)(5) to (10). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(e)(2)(D), struck out pars. (5) to (10), which related, respectively, to more than 1 offender, more than 1 victim, payment schedule, setoff, effect on other sources of compensation, and condition of probation or supervised release.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–294, which directed substitution of “designee” for “delegee” wherever appearing, could not be executed because of amendment by Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(e)(3), (4). See below.

Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(e)(3), (4), redesignated subsec. (f) as (c) and struck out former subsec. (c) relating to proof of claim.

Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(e)(3), struck out subsecs. (d) and (e) which read as follows:

“(d) Modification of Order.—A victim or the offender may petition the court at any time to modify a restitution order as appropriate in view of a change in the economic circumstances of the offender.

“(e) Reference to Magistrate or Special Master.—The court may refer any issue arising in connection with a proposed order of restitution to a magistrate or special master for proposed findings of fact and recommendations as to disposition, subject to a de novo determination of the issue by the court.”

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(e)(4), redesignated subsec. (f) as (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–132 effective, to extent constitutionally permissible, for sentencing proceedings in cases in which defendant is convicted on or after Apr. 24, 1996, see section 211 of Pub. L. 104–132, set out as a note under section 2248 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases, 1994–2016 · leading case: United States v. Baggett, 125 F.3d 1319 (9th Cir. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Baggett, 125 F.3d 1319 (9th Cir. 1997). · cites it 10× “” 18 U.S.C. § 2327 (f). The issuance of a restitution order is mandatory, regardless of the defendant’s financial circumstances.”

United States v. Van Alstyne, 584 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2009). “In addition to the VWPA, the Pre-Sentence Report and the District Judge relied on the authority of the Senior Citizens Against Marketing Scams Act of 1994 (SCAMS), 18 U.S.C. § 2327 (1994), to order restitution.”

Vicky v. United States, 709 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Contrary to Vicky’s assertion, the variation among these restitution statutes does not mean that Congress eliminated the proximate cause requirement for the specifically enumerated losses in subsections 2259(b)(3)(A) through (E).”

United States v. Kearney, 672 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2012). “at 2083 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2327 (b)(3)) (restitution for telemarketing fraud crimes).”

United States v. Johnson, 297 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “Title 18 U.S.C. § 2327 states that a court shall order full restitution to all victims in cases involving wire fraud, mail fraud, or conspiracy to commit such fraud, if the offense is committed in connection with telemarketing.”

United States v. Papagno, 639 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “§ 2264 (domestic violence); 18 U.S.C. § 2327 (telemarketing fraud); 21 U.”

United States v. Mary M. Porter, 41 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1994). “Section 250002 of that Act, codified as 18 U.S.C. § 2327 , dealing with telemarketing fraud, provides that the court “shall” order restitution for any covered offense, even if only for a nominal amount.”

United States v. Boyd, 222 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “Together, these provisions require that “in each order of restitution, the court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant.”

United States v. Brent Boyd & Herve Sourati, Also Known as Brian Sinclair, 239 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “In an opinion addressing the sentencing of one of defendants' co-conspirators, we noted that the restitution order was governed by the *472 overlapping provisions of the MVRA and 18 U.S.C. § 2327 , which provides for mandatory restitution in cases of telemarketing fraud.”

United States v. Mary M. Porter, 90 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1996). “1796, codified as 18 U.S.C. § 2327 (d) and § 2248(d) respectively, for the district judge’s consideration.”

United States v. Brian Berardini, 112 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997). “Other Contentions Berardini also contends, inter alia, that the government did not present proof of the victims’ losses as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2327 (1994) and that the court abused its discretion in failing to make his restitution obligation joint and several with the…”

United States v. Villongco (D.D.C. 2016). “§ 2264 (domestic violence); 18 U.S.C. § 2327 (telemarketing fraud); 21 U.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.