18 U.S.C. § 2429

Mandatory restitution

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

(a) Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty authorized by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense under this chapter.(b)(1) The order of restitution under this section shall direct the defendant to pay the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim’s losses, as determined by the court under paragraph (3), and shall additionally require the defendant to pay the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim’s services, if the services constitute commercial sex acts as defined under section 1591.(2) 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) As used in this subsection, the term “full amount of the victim’s losses” has the same meaning as provided in section 2259(b)(3).(c) The forfeiture of property under this section shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 (other than subsection (d) of such section) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853).(d) As used in this section, the term “victim” means the individual harmed as a result of a crime under this chapter, including, in the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or a representative of the victim’s estate, or another family member, or any other person appointed as suitable by the court, but in no event shall the defendant be named such representative or guardian.(Added Pub. L. 115–392, § 3(a), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5251.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2022–2025 · leading case: United States v. Nathan Kempter, 29 F.4th 960 (8th Cir. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Nathan Kempter, 29 F.4th 960 (8th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “2 Kempter does not dispute that this provision applies to his convictions but argues that the award is not authorized by the statutory definition of allowable restitution.”

United States v. Kelly, 128 F.4th 387 (2d Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “18 for Jane pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2429 and § 3663 for genital herpes-related medical expenses, therapy costs, and lost income; and (2) $78,981.”

United States v. Andre Maurice Lewis (11th Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “” In his view, his argument that the district court violated the restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2429 , by imposing resti- tution in the absence of sufficient evidence as to the victim’s loss, is equivalent to a claim “that his sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by statute.”

United States v. Sanchez (5th Cir. 2022). “65, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2429 and former 18 U.S.C. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.”

United States v. Randles (9th Cir. 2025). “We also reject Randles’ argument that 18 U.S.C. § 2429 , which permits the court to order restitution in “the full amount of the victim’s losses,” cannot include ill-gotten gains.”

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.