The Court of Appeals remanded for discovery and an evidentiary hearing on Sheth's claim that the restitution judgment has been satisfied by the amounts already forfeited. United States v. Sheth, 759 F.3d 711, 717-18 (7th Cir. 2014).
We vacate the court's turnover order and remand for further proceedings. After Kincaid's conviction, the government began post-judgment proceedings in the existing criminal case to discover assets that could be used to satisfy the restitution debt. Electing to proceed under state collection procedures, see 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a), (f); United States v. Sheth, 759 F.3d 711, 713 (7th Cir. 2014), the government served Collins with a citation to discover assets. See 735 ILCS § 5/2-1402(a).
The FDCPA governs collection of, among others, debts for securing restitution in federal criminal cases. United States v. Sheth , 759 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2014).
This action is not relevant here but played some role in the first appeal of Sheth’s criminal case, particularly in the discussion of restitution, as the $ 12.37 million criminal judgment was a subset of the losses in the $ 20 million civil judgment. See United States v. Sheth , 759 F.3d 711, 712–13 (7th Cir. 2014). There was one Harris Bank investment account that the government later relinquished to Sheth’s wife, Anita Sheth, and to the Sheths’ children which is not relevant to this matter.
In the absence of a more specific federal provision, the FDCPA provides the exclusive civil procedures for the United States to collect a judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 3001; United States v. Sheth, 759 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2014). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings under the FDCPA, see 28 U.S.C. § 3003(f), and Rule 69 allows judgment creditors to use state supplementary proceedings to collect, see United States v. Gianelli, 543 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 2008).
"In general, the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act "provides the exclusive civil procedures for the United States ... to recover a judgment on a debt." " United States v. Sheth , 759 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2014). In short, the government's claim neither arises nor proceeds under the escrow agreement, which merely set the terms by which the government agreed to release its lien as to the disputed property, and the parties agreed to submit their dispute to this court in the event they were unable to resolve their claims amicably.