Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Latorella

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

June 27, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JON R. LATORELLA and JAMES C. FIELDS Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING RESTITUTION

          DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT.

         Remaining to be resolved in this case is the untidy and doggedly contested problem of restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. I established at sentencing losses totaling $6, 901, 599.63 for the fraud and deceit charges that provide the crimes of conviction. This amount presumptively provides a base line from which a restitutionary order can be ordered.

         Under the Act, restitution is mandatory without consideration of the defendant's financial circumstances; moreover, the availability of third party compensation to victims is disregarded as to those victims whose restitutionary claims are established by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3665(f)(1)(A)-(B).

         Establishing the overall loss, however, only begins the process of fashioning appropriate restitutionary order. The daunting issues here have been (I) the problem of proof as to causation regarding those victims who have actually sought restitution and (II) the manageability of a distribution plan for those identifiable victims who have established entitlement to restitution. Meanwhile, (A) a related bankruptcy proceeding and (B) a parallel Securities Exchange Commission civil enforcement action have undertaken separately to make certain victims whole and otherwise to deprive the defendants of ill-gotten gains and govern their conduct in the future. A manageable and efficient plan must take those proceedings into consideration.

         I.

         Over the period of time the problem of restitution has been under advisement, several putative victims have proven unwilling or unable to support the discrete claims fully to the Government. As a consequence, the Government has narrowed the identifiable victims for whom it presses restitutionary relief. I am satisfied the Government's screening of those who have submitted claims is well founded and will limit restitution to those - except for the defendants' former corporate vehicle, LocatePlus Holdings Corporation - whose separate restitutionary claims the Government has also pressed.

         For their part, each of the two defendants - who I now formally conclude are jointly and severally liable for the restitutionary losses established because those losses were reasonably foreseeable to each defendant and caused by one or both of the coconspirator codefendants during and in furtherance of their conspiracy together - have mounted a range of challenges to aspects of restitution orders that have been under consideration while the question of restitution has remained open. I have largely rejected those challenges as to the restitution order now sought by the Government.

         In order to balance the competing considerations and after full consideration of the parties' contentions, I have decided to impose a restitution order that triages among proven victims the order of payment and the manner of distribution. Id. at § 3665(f)(2)

         Briefly stated, payment(s) in full must first be paid to the individual victim Randy Jurecka in the amount of $76, 799.58.

         Second, following the satisfaction of Mr. Jurecka's claim, payment may be paid to the Special Situations Fund in an amount not to exceed $4, 871, 034.60.

         I conclude no other claimants should be addressed in the restitution order for this criminal case.[1]

         II.

         Having identified the claimants entitled to restitution and the related amounts of restitution to be provided to those claimants, I turn to the practical questions of manageability. The manageability challenge is presented in two basic aspects.

         First, the defendants are as a practical matter now unable to pay any significant amount of the restitution amount I have ordered and, moreover, only a portion is likely to be paid by either of them over time under any conceivable periodic payment ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.