United States v. Ward

1 Citing case

  1. U.S. v. Kaplan

    Case No.: 15cr651-CAB (S.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2017)

    An intervening cause which is not directly related to the conduct of conviction may render the causal chain so attenuated that a restitution award becomes unreasonable. See e.g., United States v. Ward, 2013 WL 57855, *3-4 (Jan. 3, 2013 N.D. Cal.) (District court declined to award certain restitution claims in light of evidence that the real estate market downturn was an intervening cause of investor losses not attributable to defendants' criminal conduct.). Finally, a court need not order restitution if it finds that "determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process."