FEDERAL CRIMINAL 

RESTITUTION

Factors to Consider 

for a Potential 

Expansion of Federal 

Courts’ Authority to 

Order Restitution

Report to Congressional Committees

October 2017

GAO-18-115

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-115, a report to 

congressional committees

October 2017

FEDERAL CRIMINAL RESTITUTION

Factors to Consider for a Potential Expansion of 

Federal Courts' Authority to Order Restitution 

What GAO Found

Federal courts have authority to award restitution for authorized losses to eligible 

victims. Generally, victims are those directly and proximately harmed as a result 

of a defendant’s offense of conviction and they may be awarded compensation 

for their actual or “out-of-pocket” losses. Provisions for the potential expansion of 

restitution contained in the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 that GAO 

reviewed could allow for courts to award restitution to additional victims and for a 

greater scope of losses. Stakeholders GAO interviewed identified various factors 

to consider related to these potential expansion provisions, for example:

• Restitution for related conduct and no proximate cause requirement. A 

factor stakeholders stated should be considered in potentially allowing 

restitution for conduct that is broader than the offense of conviction was that 

it could be a violation of a defendant’s constitutional right to due process 

because restitution could be awarded for conduct for which the defendant’s 

guilt was not established. In addition, they said it could lead to increased

complexity to determine victim losses, which could create challenges for 

federal prosecutors and could result in less restitution being awarded. For a 

potential expansion of restitution to compensate harm that was not 

proximately caused by the defendant (i.e., harm that was not reasonably 

foreseeable as a result of the offense) stakeholders said factors that should 

be considered include that the current proximate harm requirement does not 

present challenges and that such an expansion could lead to additional 

sentencing-related hearings and litigation. 

• Restitution to restore victims to their position had the offense not been 

committed. Stakeholders said this provision is already a goal of federal 

restitution, but that a potential expansion could allow judges more discretion 

to order restitution for victim losses not specified by statute, which could help 

restore the victim to his or her pre-offense condition.

• Restitution for any injury, harm, or loss, including emotional distress. A 

factor stakeholders identified in potentially expanding restitution to cover 

intangible losses, including emotional distress, included that it could increase

the complexity of the restitution process because these are not easily 

quantified losses. Relatedly, stakeholders said that the suitability of criminal 

versus civil proceedings should be considered because the civil system, 

through which crime victims may seek compensation at their own expense, is 

set up to handle these issues and losses, whereas officials involved in

criminal cases lack the specialized skills to determine these kinds of losses.

Stakeholders GAO interviewed identified additional factors related to the 

potential broadening of courts’ authority to order restitution generally; for 

example, they told GAO that increased restitution debt and collectability 

challenges should be considered. According to the Department of Justice, the 

amount of outstanding restitution debt owed in federal cases as of the end of 

fiscal year 2016 was $110.2 billion. Stakeholders stated that defendants often 

lack the financial resources to pay restitution and adding to the uncollected 

restitution debt through a potential expansion of authority could lead to further 

collection challenges. 

View GAO-18-115. For more information, 

contact Gretta L. Goodwin at (202) 512-8777 

or goodwing@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Victims of federal crimes may be 

compensated for their losses through 

criminal proceedings when federal

courts order restitution during a 

defendant’s sentencing. Federal law 

dictates the crimes for which restitution 

is mandatory versus discretionary and 

what types of losses may be 

compensated. Federal prosecutors and 

Department of Justice officials are 

responsible for proving and litigating 

issues related to victims’ losses for 

restitution orders, enforcing orders of 

restitution, and collecting criminal debt, 

including unpaid restitution.

The Justice for All Reauthorization Act 

of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-324, contains 

a provision for GAO to conduct a 

review on the factors that should be 

considered when broadening 

restitution provisions. This report 

describes factors stakeholders believe 

should be considered for a potential 

expansion of federal courts’ authority 

to award restitution. 

To gather information on factors, GAO

interviewed a non-generalizable group 

of stakeholders knowledgeable about 

the restitution process, including 

individuals and entities representing 

federal judges and court officials, 

federal prosecutors and Department of 

Justice officials, victims, and 

defendants and their counsel. GAO 

also reviewed relevant federal laws, 

legal cases, agency documentation,

summary data on orders for restitution 

from fiscal years 1996 through 2016,

and the amount of outstanding 

restitution debt owed in federal cases

as of the end of fiscal year 2016. 
Page i GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Letter 1

Background 5

Stakeholders Identified Various Factors Related to the Potential 

Expansion of Federal Courts’ Authority to Order Restitution 15

Agency Comments 27

Appendix I Overview of Restitution Provisions for Potential Expansion in the 

Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 29

Appendix II Restitution Imposed by the Federal Courts from Fiscal Years 1996 

through 2016 33

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 35

Tables

Table 1: List of Ten Stakeholders GAO Interviewed from the Four 

Key Stakeholder Groups in the Federal Restitution 

Process 3

Table 2: Provisions for Potential Expansion of Federal Courts’ 

Authority to Order Restitution in the Justice for All 

Reauthorization Act of 2016 and Factors Cited by 

Stakeholders in the Restitution Process 30

Table 3: Restitution Imposed for Individual and Organizational 

Offenders by the U.S. Courts, Fiscal Years 1996 through 

2016 33

Table 4: Amount of Restitution Imposed at Sentencing for 

Individual and Organizational Offenders by the U.S. 

Courts, Fiscal Years 1996 through 2016 (U.S. dollars) 34

Figures

Figure 1: Overview of Compensation of Victims of Crime through 

Federal Criminal Restitution and Civil Proceedings 12

Figure 2: Restitution Imposed by the Federal Courts for Individual 

and Organizational Offenders, Fiscal Years 1996 through 

2016 13

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Abbreviations

CJA The Criminal Justice Act

DOJ Department of Justice

MVRA The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 

USSC U.S. Sentencing Commission

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

October 12, 2017

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Robert W. Goodlatte

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The impact of crime on an individual victim often has significant 

emotional, psychological, physical, financial, and social consequences. 

The primary goal of federal criminal restitution is remedial or 

compensatory and federal courts may order defendants to pay restitution 

to compensate victims for their losses as authorized by statute during 

sentencing.1 Federal law dictates the crimes for which restitution is 

mandatory versus discretionary and what types of harms may be 

compensated. For example, federal courts are required to order 

restitution following conviction for crimes such as stalking, arson, sexual 

exploitation of children, and fraud as well as all other crimes of violence 

and property crimes.2 In addition, federal courts are permitted, but not 

required, to order victim restitution related to other offenses in Title 18 of 

 1

Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 1726 (2014); see, e.g., United States v. 

Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Federal courts have no inherent power to 

order restitution. A sentencing court’s power to order restitution, therefore, depends upon, 

and is necessarily circumscribed by, statute.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

2

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, where there is an identifiable victim who has suffered a 

physical injury or monetary loss, the court is required to order an offender to pay 

restitution, regardless of the offender’s ability to pay, for a conviction of (1) a crime of 

violence as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16; (2) a property crime, including any offense 

committed by fraud or deceit or maintaining a drug-involved premise (21 U.S.C. § 856(a)); 

(3) an offense related to tampering with consumer products (18 U.S.C. § 1365); and (4) 

theft of and other offenses relating to pre-retail medical products (18 U.S.C. § 670). Other 

restitution statutes require courts to award restitution for specific offenses. 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 228(d), 1593, 2248, 2259, 2264, 2323(c), 2327; 21 U.S.C. § 853(q).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

the U.S. Code—for example, conspiracies to commit tax evasion and 

violate civil rights—and various controlled substance offenses under Title 

21, among others.3 Further, federal courts may also order restitution to 

the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement, including to 

persons other than the victim.4 If no statutory authority for ordering 

restitution is applicable to a specific offense, the court may nevertheless 

order restitution to the victim, solely as a condition of probation or 

supervised release.5 The types of compensable expenses specified in 

statute include, for example, the costs of medical and other services 

related to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, and 

reimbursement for lost income as a result of the offense, among other 

enumerated losses.6

The Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 contains a provision for us 

to conduct a review and, within 180 days, report on the factors that should 

be considered when broadening restitution provisions, including four 

areas. The four expansion areas are as follows: (1) to apply to victims 

who have suffered harm, injury, or loss that would not have occurred but 

for the defendant’s related conduct; (2) in the case of an offense resulting 

in the victim’s death, to allow the court to use its discretion to award the 

income lost by the victim’s surviving family members or estate as a result 

of the victim’s death; (3) to require that the defendant pay to the victim an 

amount determined by the court to restore the victim to the position he or 

she would have been in had the defendant not committed the offense; 

and (4) to require the defendant compensate the victim for any injury, 

harm, or loss, including emotional distress, that occurred as a result of the 

offense.7 See appendix I for additional information on these four 

expansion areas to broaden courts’ authority to order restitution. To meet 

the 180 day reporting requirement, we provided a briefing to your staff in 

June 2017. This report transmits the final results of our review. 

Specifically, this report describes the factors reported by stakeholders we 

interviewed that should be considered for a potential expansion of federal 

courts’ authority to award restitution in these four specific areas.

 3

18 U.S.C. § 3663.

4

18 U.S.C. §§ 3663(a)(1)(A), (a)(3), 3663A(a)(3).

5

18 U.S.C. §§ 3563(b)(2), 3583(d). Restitution ordered as a condition of probation or 

supervised release expires with the term of supervision, as opposed to a sentence of 

restitution which is generally enforceable for at least 20 years.

6

18 U.S.C. §§ 3663(b), 3663A(b).

7

Pub. L. No. 114-324, § 2(d), 130 Stat. 1948, 1948-49. 
Page 3 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

To gather information on factors related to expanding federal courts’

authority to order restitution, we reviewed the process of ordering 

restitution to victims in federal criminal proceedings, and identified four 

key groups: federal judges and court officials (including clerks and 

probation officers), prosecutors and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, 

victims, and defendants and their counsel. In order to obtain the 

perspectives of representatives from each of these key groups, we 

interviewed stakeholders, including officials from the federal judiciary and 

DOJ, representatives from associations, and four individuals 

knowledgeable about the federal restitution process referred to us by 

other officials. Stakeholders we interviewed included at least two 

individuals or entities representing federal judges and court officials, 

prosecutors and DOJ officials, victims, and defendants and their counsel. 

We provided stakeholders with a summary of their opinions in order to 

ensure we correctly captured their views. Table 1 lists those that we 

interviewed and their affiliation with the federal restitution process. While 

the information gathered from our interviews is not generalizable to all 

stakeholders in the federal restitution process, it does provide insights 

into factors associated with expanding the authority of the federal courts 

to order restitution from key stakeholder groups in the restitution 

process.8

Table 1: List of Ten Stakeholders GAO Interviewed from the Four Key Stakeholder Groups in the Federal Restitution Process 

Stakeholder affiliation List of stakeholders

Judges and court officials 1. Federal judiciary officials

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Judicial Conference of the United States

U.S. Sentencing Commission 

Federal Judicial Center

Probation and Pretrial Services

Prosecutors and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials 2. DOJ officials 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Criminal Division

3. National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys

 8

The number of stakeholders who commented on particular provisions varied because 

some stakeholders did not have opinions on each provision. Additionally, the factors 

identified by stakeholders were provided in response to open-ended interview questions. 

Therefore, multiple stakeholders identified common factors only if they were mentioned 

spontaneously.
Page 4 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Stakeholder affiliation List of stakeholders

Victims 4. National Crime Victim Law Institute

5. Mr. Paul Cassell, Esq., Professor, University of Utah College of Law

6. Mr. James R. Marsh, Esq., private attorney

Defendants and their counsel 7. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

8. Mr. James Felman, Esq., private attorney

9. Federal and Community Defendersa

Restitution consultant, not affiliated 10. Ms. Catharine M. Goodwin, Esq., author and restitution consultant

Source: GAO. │ GAO-18-115

a

Although part of the federal judiciary, Federal and Community Defenders represent defendants.

We also reviewed relevant federal laws and legislative history, legal 

cases, agency documentation, our past work on restitution, 

Congressional Research Service reports, and secondary legal sources on 

restitution, including law review articles and publications. In addition, we 

reviewed summary data on orders for restitution from the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission (USSC)9 from fiscal years 1996 through 2016, a time period 

starting after enactment of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 

(MVRA)10 through the most recent fiscal year for which complete data 

were available. We also reviewed summary data from DOJ on the total 

amount of outstanding restitution debt owed in federal cases reported for 

fiscal year 2016, the most recent fiscal year for which complete data are 

available. To assess the reliability of the data, we reviewed agency 

documents and interviewed responsible officials to understand their 

methods for collecting, reporting, and validating the data. We found the 

data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to October 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

 9

USSC is an independent judicial branch agency responsible for, among other things, 

collection, preparation, and dissemination of information on sentences imposed across 

federal courts. 28 U.S.C. §§ 991, 995. 

10The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) was enacted as subtitle A of title II of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, §§ 201-211, 

110 Stat. 1214, 1227-1241. In addition to adding mandatory restitution for most federal 

offenses, the MVRA also required that courts order restitution in the full amount of each 

victim’s losses without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant. 18 

U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). 
Page 5 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings based 

on our audit objectives.

Victims of federal crimes may be compensated for their losses through 

criminal proceedings when a federal court orders restitution pursuant to 

statute. Restitution is part of the sentencing process for federal offenders 

and there are four key groups of stakeholders involved:

• Judges and court officials. The federal judiciary consists of a 

system of courts that has the critical responsibility of ensuring the fair 

and swift administration of justice in the United States and handles all 

federal civil, criminal, and bankruptcy cases and reviews of federal 

administrative agency cases throughout the country.11 The federal 

courts have various responsibilities in the restitution process. Federal 

judges are responsible for ordering the proper amount and type of 

restitution, including payment schedules and modifications.12 Federal 

probation officers are responsible for the presentence report, which 

must include information for the court to use in fashioning a restitution 

order, including, among other things, a complete accounting of the 

losses to each victim and information about the economic 

circumstances of each defendant.13 Following a defendant’s 

sentencing and the imposition of restitution, probation officers 

supervise offenders to ensure compliance with orders for restitution, 

including conducting ongoing financial investigations, supporting U.S. 

Attorneys’ Offices in the collection and enforcement of restitution 

orders, notifying the federal court of an offender’s failure to pay 

 11The judiciary’s system of courts consists of the Supreme Court, 12 regional circuit courts 

of appeals, 94 district courts, and 91 bankruptcy courts, as well as courts of special 

jurisdiction, including the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of 

International Trade, and the Court of Federal Claims. 

1218 U.S.C. § 3664.

13Id. A federal probation officer completes a presentence report after conducting a 

presentence interview as well as an independent investigation of the offense and the 

defendant’s background. In addition to information about the offense and defendant, the 

presentence report also contains the statutory range of punishment and a calculation of 

the relevant sentencing guidelines, victim information, and victim harms and losses 

applicable to restitution.

Background

Stakeholders Involved in 

the Federal Restitution 

Process
Page 6 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

outstanding restitution, and making recommendations to amend 

orders based on changes in an offender’s ability to pay.14 Clerks of 

federal courts are responsible for receipting and disbursing restitution 

payments and notifying DOJ of such.15 In addition, the Director of the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has statutory responsibilities 

related to the restitution process, including establishing procedures 

and mechanisms within the judicial branch for processing fines, 

restitution, forfeitures of bail bonds or collateral, and assessments.16

The Judicial Conference of the United States, a body of 27 judges 

over which the Chief Justice of the United States presides, is the 

judiciary’s principal policymaking body and operates through a 

network of committees created to address and advise on a wide 

variety of subjects such as budget, criminal law, and court 

administration.17 Given the role of the judiciary in the restitution 

process, the Judicial Conference has taken policy positions on various 

restitution-related issues and has supported various legislative 

proposals to improve the process.18

• Prosecutors and DOJ officials. DOJ officials are responsible for 

prosecuting federal offenses, identifying victims of crime and 

informing them of restitution to which they may be entitled, identifying 

victim losses and harms that are subject to restitution after consulting 

with victims and providing that information to probation officers, 

demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by the victim, enforcing 

orders of restitution, and collecting criminal debt, including unpaid 

restitution.19 Various entities and officials within DOJ are responsible 

for these activities, including federal prosecutors in the Criminal 

 14As described below, DOJ has statutory responsibility for the enforcement and collection 

of criminal debt including restitution. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3612(c), 3664(m)(1)(A). 

1518 U.S.C. § 3612. Clerks may authorize disbursement from the U.S. Treasury.

1628 U.S.C. § 604(a)(18). 

1728 U.S.C. § 331. 

18For example, the Judicial Conference has supported legislative proposals treating most 

fines and orders of restitution in criminal offenses as civil debts, payable immediately and 

collectable by either DOJ or the victim. 

1928 U.S.C. §§ 516, 518; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3612, 3664; 34 U.S.C. § 20141 (transferred from 

42 U.S.C. § 10607). DOJ officials enter victim names and contact information into DOJ’s 

Victim Notification System, which is a free, computer-based system that provides federal 

crime victims with information on scheduled court events, as well as the outcome of those 

court events.
Page 7 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Division and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, and their respective Financial 

Litigation Units.20

• Victims. A federal crime victim is a person directly and proximately 

harmed as the result of a federal offense.21 Federal crime victims are 

entitled to full and timely restitution as provided in law.22 Victims may 

provide information to prosecutors, probation officers, and to the court 

about their losses and have a right to be heard at sentencing, but are 

not required to participate in any phase of the restitution 

proceedings.23

• Defendants and their counsel. Defendants who commit federal 

crimes where an identifiable victim suffered a physical injury or 

monetary loss are generally required to pay restitution.24 Defendants 

are required to submit information about their financial resources and 

the financial needs and earning ability of their dependents to the court 

and have the burden of demonstrating these resources and needs in 

any restitution proceedings.25 Defendants are generally represented 

by counsel in criminal proceedings26 and according to the judiciary 

approximately 90 percent qualify for court-appointed counsel under 

the Criminal Justice Act because they are financially unable to retain 

 2028 C.F.R. § 0.171. Financial Litigation Units within all of DOJ’s U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 

are primarily responsible for the enforcement and collection of debts owed to the United 

States and the victims of federal crimes. DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons also collects restitution 

payments through its Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, which is a work program 

instituted by the Bureau of Prisons to encourage each sentenced inmate to meet his or 

her legitimate financial obligations. The program allows for the development of a financial 

plan so that inmates may satisfy enumerated obligations, such as restitution payments, 

while incarcerated. 28 C.F.R. §§ 545.10, 545.11(a).

21The term “victim” means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the 

commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered. This includes, in the case 

of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal 

activity, any person directly harmed by the defendant's criminal conduct in the course of 

the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663(a)(2), 3663A(2). Victims may 

include the government and private entities, such as corporations. 

2218 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6).

2318 U.S.C. §§ 3664(d),(g), 3771(a).

2418 U.S.C. §§ 3663, 3663A; U.S. Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 

§ 5E1.1(a). 

2518 U.S.C. § 3664(e). 

26See U.S. Const. amend. VI.
Page 8 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

counsel in federal criminal proceedings.27 Court-appointed counsel is 

provided by Federal Defender Organizations and panel attorneys.28 A 

defendant may be convicted pursuant to plea agreement with the 

government or after a trial; more than 90 percent of defendants plead 

guilty rather than go to trial. A defendant is referred to as an offender 

following conviction of an offense.

Restitution is only available to victims and for harms as statutorily 

authorized. Congress passed the MVRA in 1996, which substantially 

revised the restitution process. The legislative history reflects the 

balancing of competing interests—including ensuring that the loss to 

crime victims is recognized, that they receive the restitution that they are 

due, and also that the offender realizes the damages caused by the 

offense and pays the debt owed to the victim as well to society.29 As 

provided in the legislative history, one of the ways that the law sought to 

balance the application of mandatory restitution was by limiting it to the 

instances where a named identifiable victim suffered a physical injury or 

monetary loss as a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s offense 

of conviction.30 This means that the victim would not have been harmed 

“but for” the conduct underlying the offense of conviction and also that the 

harm was proximately caused by the conduct. Proximately caused means 

that the causal nexus between the conduct and the loss is not too 

attenuated either factually or temporally. As such, a defendant is not held 

liable for downstream effects of an act where there were additional, 

 2718 U.S.C. § 3006A.

28The Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. § 3006A, or CJA) provides representation to 

financially eligible criminal defendants through federal defender organizations and CJA 

panel attorneys. There are two types of federal defender organizations: federal public 

defender organizations and community defender organizations. Federal public defender 

organizations are federal entities, and their staffs are federal employees. Community 

defender organizations are non-profit defense counsel organizations incorporated under 

state laws which receive federal grants to fund their operations. CJA panel attorneys are 

qualified lawyers in private practice appointed by federal courts to represent financially 

eligible defendants in criminal cases, typically when a federal defender organization is 

unable to represent the defendant.

29S. Rep. No. 104-179 (1995), at 12. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, of which the MVRA was enacted as title II, 

subtitle A, provides that the Senate Judiciary Committee Report to accompany H.R. 665 

should serve as the legislative history for the MVRA. H.R. Rep. No. 104-518 (1996), at 

111-12.

30S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 19.

Compensation in the 

Restitution Process
Page 9 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

intervening causes not sufficiently related to the offense.31 For example, a 

rapist would not be held responsible for the death of a hospitalized rape 

victim who died in a hospital fire.32 In addition, the loss caused by the 

defendant’s conduct underlying the offense of conviction establishes the 

outer limits of the restitution order.33 This means that harms caused by 

the defendant’s conduct that were related to, but outside the scope of, the 

crime of conviction cannot be compensated through restitution.34 For 

example, a defendant who was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm 

but acquitted of using the firearm to shoot someone would not be liable 

for restitution for medical costs for the shooting victim.35

The restitution statutes specify the types of harm that may be 

compensated, and federal case law interpreting these statutes provides 

guidance to courts when ordering restitution. For example, when a crime 

results in bodily injury to a victim, compensable expenses include the 

costs of medical and other services related to physical, psychiatric, and 

psychological care; costs for necessary physical and occupational 

therapy and rehabilitation; and reimbursement for lost income as a result 

of the offense, among other enumerated losses.36 Courts have also 

ordered restitution for a victim’s actual losses that were proximately 

caused by the defendant’s conduct even when not explicitly listed in 

statute. When restitution is ordered by the court, it is to be in the full 

amount of each victim’s losses without consideration of the economic 

 31In other words, the “causal chain” between loss and conduct may not extend so far, in 

terms of the facts or the time span, as to become unreasonable. 

32See United States v. Marlatt, 24 F.3d 1005, 1007 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Brackett v. 

Peters, 11 F.3d 78, 79-80 (7th Cir. 1993)); Catharine M. Goodwin, Federal Criminal 

Restitution (Eagan, Minnesota: Thomson West, 2016), 215-217.

33Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1720; Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 413 (1990).

34The statutes also provide that where the offense involves as an element a scheme, 

conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person directly harmed by the defendant’s 

criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern is also a victim. This 

means that a criminal defendant who is convicted of conspiracy or other scheme offenses 

may be liable in restitution for all losses flowing from that conspiracy; this has included 

harm caused by a co-conspirator for conduct not underlying the offense of conviction.

35See United States v. McArthur, 108 F.3d 1350, 1357 (11th Cir. 1997) (case decided 

under pre-MVRA law); see also United States v. Romines, 204 F.3d 1067, 1069 (11th Cir. 

2000) (Defendant who was convicted of escape from a half-way house could not be 

ordered to pay restitution to employers from whom he stole money in furtherance of his 

escape because there was no conviction for embezzlement.).

3618 U.S.C. §§ 3663(b)(2), 3663A(b)(2). 
Page 10 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

circumstances of the defendant.37 During a defendant’s sentencing, 

additional hearings may be held to examine losses to victims for 

restitution and prosecutors are responsible for proving and litigating 

issues related to victims’ losses. Restitution may be imposed by the 

federal courts up to 90 days after sentencing if additional time is needed 

by the court to locate victims and calculate losses.38 In some cases, 

courts can decline to order restitution, such as when the court determines 

that fashioning an order of restitution would complicate or prolong the 

sentencing process so much that the need to provide restitution is 

outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process.39

Separate from criminal restitution, victims may seek compensation from 

the offender by pursuing litigation at their own expense through a civil 

proceeding in a federal, state, or local court.40 In the United States, 

criminal and civil proceedings are separate legal systems subject to 

different laws, standards, and rules of procedure. The types of harms for 

which a victim may receive compensation differ in a civil proceeding. For 

 3718 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1). The defendant’s financial resources are only a consideration of 

whether the court orders restitution, not in determining its amount, for discretionary 

restitution under section 3663. Should restitution be ordered under that section, it must be 

ordered in the full amount of each victim’s losses.

38See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5). The Supreme Court has held that a sentencing court that 

misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitution—at least 

where the sentencing court made clear prior to the deadline’s expiration that it would order 

restitution, leaving open (for more than 90 days) only the amount. Dolan v. United States, 

560 U.S. 605, 608 (2010).

3918 U.S.C. §§ 3663, 3663A. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A the court cannot decline to order 

restitution for crimes of violence. 

40Other means for obtaining or facilitating compensation include: 1) Victims of federal 

crimes who have incurred a financial loss as a direct result of the commission of the 

offense underlying a forfeiture may seek compensation through submission of a petition 

for remission to DOJ for forfeited assets from defendants. This process is governed by 28 

C.F.R. part 9. Under its restoration procedures, DOJ may forfeit a defendant’s property 

and transfer the proceeds to the court in satisfaction of an order of restitution. See

Department of Justice, Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual (2016). Forfeited assets are 

property of the United States and courts and defendants lack authority to use them to 

satisfy a defendant’s criminal debts, including fines or restitution obligations. Id. 2) Victims 

of federal crimes may file a lien against an offender in a state or local court by requesting 

a clerk of a U.S. District Court issue an Abstract of Judgment certifying that a judgment 

has been entered in a victim’s favor in the amount specified in the restitution order. 18 

U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(B). 3) In instances where an offender has been convicted of an 

offense that gave rise to a restitution order, when a victim sues the offender for damages 

in a civil proceeding, the offender generally cannot deny the essential allegations of that 

offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(l). 
Page 11 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

example, federal criminal courts may order restitution to reimburse a 

victim for medical expenses, but cannot order compensation for pain and 

suffering caused by a crime. However, a victim may seek compensation 

for pain and suffering by filing a civil action against the defendant, as well 

as for other types of damages that are not available through restitution.41

Other types of civil remedies not compensable as criminal restitution 

include intended harm, punitive damages, breach of contract, and 

disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, among others. Figure 1 below outlines 

the steps taken for compensation of victims of federal crimes through 

federal criminal restitution and civil proceedings.

 41Litigation during civil proceedings for losses to crime victims follows tort law, which is 

almost exclusively contained in state law and the large majority of tort cases are filed in 

state court. A tort is an injury to someone’s person, reputation, or feelings or damage to 

real property. In civil proceedings, courts can hold injurers liable for compensatory 

damages to cover the “economic” or monetary cost of an injury—for example, medical 

costs and lost wages—and the “noneconomic” or non-monetary costs of pain and 

suffering and punitive damages intended to punish a defendant for willful and wanton 

conduct. 
Page 12 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Figure 1: Overview of Compensation of Victims of Crime through Federal Criminal Restitution and Civil Proceedings

Note: Victims of federal crimes may also file a lien against an offender in a state or local court by 

requesting a clerk of a federal court issue an Abstract of Judgment certifying that a judgment has 

been entered in a victim’s favor in the amount specified in the restitution order. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3664(m)(1)(B).
Page 13 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

a

Clerks of U.S. District Courts are responsible for receipting restitution payments made by offenders 

and distributing those funds to victims. The Department of Justice’s U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are 

primarily responsible for the enforcement and collection of debts owed to the United States and the 

victims of federal crimes, including restitution.

According to USSC data for fiscal years 1996 through 2016, the 

percentage of offenders ordered to pay restitution by federal courts has 

remained fairly steady. From fiscal years 1996 through 2016, an average 

of 15 percent of individual offenders and 32 percent of organizational 

offenders annually were ordered to pay restitution by the federal courts 

(see fig. 2).42 For more information on the restitution imposed by the 

federal courts from fiscal years 1996 through 2016, see appendix II.

Figure 2: Restitution Imposed by the Federal Courts for Individual and Organizational Offenders, Fiscal Years 1996 through 

2016

 42Organizational offenders are offenders sentenced other than persons, such as

corporations, partnerships, unions, trusts, pension funds, and non-profits. 

Total Restitution Ordered 

Since 1996
Page 14 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Note: Restitution is imposed by federal courts pursuant to statute to the extent authorized for the 

particular offense and provided there is generally an identifiable victim. For example, restitution is not 

typically imposed for drug and immigration offenses.

We have previously reported on issues related to the collection of federal 

restitution and currently have ongoing work on DOJ’s collection of 

restitution pursuant to the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016.43

According to data DOJ provided to us, the total outstanding restitution 

debt owed in federal cases as of the end of fiscal year 2016 was $110.2 

billion. DOJ, through its U.S. Attorneys’ Offices’ Financial Litigation Units,

is responsible for collecting restitution debt from offenders. This collection 

typically begins after offenders are sentenced and ordered to pay 

restitution and includes enforcement actions such as filing garnishments 

and liens.44 We noted in our 2001 and 2004 reports that collection of 

outstanding restitution debt is inherently difficult due to a number of 

factors, such as offenders who may be incarcerated or have minimal 

earning capacity and the MVRA requirement that the assessment of 

restitution be based on actual loss and not on an offender’s ability to 

pay.45 In 2005, we reported that court-ordered restitution amounts far 

exceed likely collections for crime victims in selected financial fraud 

cases.46 Specifically, we found that these offenders, who had either been 

high-ranking officials of companies or operated their own businesses, 

pleaded guilty to crimes for which the courts ordered restitution totaling 

about $568 million to victims. As of the completion of our fieldwork, which 

was up to 8 years after the offenders’ sentencing, court records showed 

that amounts collected for the victims in these cases totaled only about 

$40 million, or about 7 percent of the ordered restitution.

 43GAO, Criminal Debt: Court-Ordered Restitution Amounts Far Exceed Likely Collections 

for the Crime Victims in Selected Financial Fraud Cases, GAO-05-80 (Washington, D.C.: 

Jan. 31, 2005); Criminal Debt: Actions Still Needed to Address Deficiencies in Justice’s 

Collection Processes, GAO-04-338 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 5, 2004); and Criminal Debt: 

Oversight and Actions Needed to Address Deficiencies in Collection Processes, 

GAO-01-664 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2001). Pub. L. No. 114-324, § 18, 130 Stat. at 

1963-64. 

44Clerks of U.S. District Courts are responsible for receipt of restitution payments from 

offenders. 

45GAO-04-338, GAO-01-664. 

46GAO-05-80. 

Collection of Restitution
Page 15 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Stakeholders we interviewed identified various factors related to the 

potential expansion of federal courts’ authority to order restitution in the 

four areas listed in the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016: (1) to 

apply to victims who have suffered harm, injury, or loss that would not 

have occurred but for the defendant’s related conduct; (2) in the case of 

an offense resulting in the victim’s death, to allow the court to use its 

discretion to award the income lost by the victim’s surviving family 

members or estate as a result of the victim’s death; (3) to require that the 

defendant pay to the victim an amount determined by the court to restore 

the victim to the position he or she would have been in had the defendant 

not committed the offense; and (4) to require the defendant compensate 

the victim for any injury, harm, or loss, including emotional distress, that 

occurred as a result of the offense. Stakeholders also identified additional 

factors to consider, beyond the ones identified for the four provisions 

above, for potential broadening of courts’ authority to order restitution 

generally. For a summary of the provisions and factors cited by 

stakeholders, see appendix I.

Federal courts have the authority to order defendants to pay restitution for 

a victim’s losses that resulted from the defendant’s conduct underlying 

the offense of conviction. However, at times, a defendant’s related 

conduct can be broader than the offense of conviction and can include 

criminal conduct for which the defendant’s guilt was not established either 

by trial or plea agreement with the government. For example, in a case 

before the Fourth Circuit where restitution was not allowed for conduct 

that was broader than the offense of conviction, the government asserted 

that the defendant was the ringleader of a nationwide pickpocketing ring 

and submitted a list of victims for restitution that included five financial 

Stakeholders 

Identified Various 

Factors Related to 

the Potential 

Expansion of Federal 

Courts’ Authority to 

Order Restitution

Factors to Consider in a 

Potential Expansion of 

Restitution Authority if it 

were to Include a 

Defendant’s Related 

Conduct and Eliminate the 

Proximate Cause 

Requirement

Related Conduct
Page 16 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

institutions and four individuals who had suffered losses.47 However, 

because the defendant had pleaded guilty to, and was convicted for, 

fraudulent use of a credit card related to one individual on one date—and 

the defendant’s offense did not involve as an element a scheme, 

conspiracy, or pattern—the court determined that restitution was not 

proper for the additional victims because they were not harmed by the 

conduct underlying the offense of conviction.48 On the other hand, when a 

defendant has been convicted of an offense that involves as an element a 

scheme, conspiracy, or pattern, the court may order restitution for direct 

harm caused by that scheme, conspiracy, or pattern. For example, in 

another case involving credit card fraud, because the defendant pleaded 

guilty to and was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit credit 

cards—in contrast to the previous case where the defendant was 

convicted of only one fraudulent use—the Eleventh Circuit held that the 

sentencing court could order a defendant to pay restitution for losses from 

additional credit card fraud that were to advance the conspiracy.49

Stakeholders we interviewed identified the following factors to consider if 

federal courts’ authority were to be broadened to allow a defendant’s 

related conduct to be included in an order for restitution:

• Constitutional issues. Eight of 10 stakeholders we spoke with 

identified potential constitutional issues if the federal courts could 

order restitution for a defendant’s related conduct. For example, two 

stakeholders representing defendants and an association 

representing federal prosecutors told us that including a defendant’s 

related conduct in orders for restitution could result in potential 

violations of a defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Due 

Process Clause, which provides that no person shall be deprived of 

life, liberty, or property without due process of law.50 This was also a 

 47United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 368, 372-73 (4th Cir. 2006).

48Id. at 373-74. 

49United States v. Obasohan, 73 F.3d 309, 310-11 (11th Cir. 1996).

50U.S. Const. amend. V. Defendants are entitled to constitutional protections, including 

due process under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Due process involves 

administration of law equally applicable to all citizens, according to rules based on 

fundamental principles of private rights, and adjudication in a competent tribunal with 

jurisdiction, by hearing upon notice. 
Page 17 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

concern noted in the legislative history of the MVRA,51 and an 

individual knowledgeable about restitution we interviewed noted that 

the Supreme Court has also suggested that due process could be a 

concern if the court were to order federal criminal restitution beyond 

the conduct underlying the conviction.52

• Increased complexity to determine losses. Four of 10 stakeholders 

we spoke with stated that if the authority of federal courts to order 

restitution were broadened to allow inclusion of harms for a 

defendant’s related conduct, there would be increased complexity to 

determine losses for restitution. For example, DOJ officials told us that 

inclusion of a defendant’s related conduct would allow restitution to be 

open to a larger pool of potential victims, and identifying and 

calculating losses for all victims with a nexus to the offense of 

conviction could become an impossible task. An association 

representing federal prosecutors stated that this increased complexity 

could have the effect of federal courts ordering less restitution through 

the exception for complex cases, which would negatively impact

victims.53

• DOJ’s practices for plea bargaining. In contrast, two individuals we 

spoke with who represent victims stated that prosecutors could more 

consistently follow DOJ’s guidelines to include a defendant’s related 

conduct in plea agreements without expanding federal courts’

authority to order restitution.54 DOJ guidelines, which are based on 

statutory direction, provide that prosecutors must consider requesting 

full restitution to all victims for all charges contained in the indictment, 

 51S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 23 (“It is the committee’s view that permitting the court to order 

restitution for offenses for which the defendant has neither been convicted nor pleaded 

guilty may violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment.”). 

52See Hughey, 495 U.S. at 420 n.5.

53Both sections 3663 and 3663A have exceptions for the court to decline to order 

restitution for reasons of complexity. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663(a)(1)(B)(ii) (court may decline 

to order restitution if complication and prolongation of the sentencing process outweighs 

the need to provide restitution to any victims), 3663A(c)(3) (section does not apply for 

certain offenses if restitution is made impracticable due to such a large number of 

identifiable victims; or determining complex issues related to the cause or amount of a 

victim’s losses would so complicate or prolong the sentencing process as to outweigh the 

need to provide restitution to any victim). The exception under § 3663A(c)(3) does not 

apply to crimes of violence, or crimes relating to tampering with consumer products or 

theft of medical products. 

54See U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, Plea Agreements and Restitution, 9-16.320. See also

Department of Justice, Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance

(May 2012). 
Page 18 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

without regard to the counts to which the defendant actually pleaded 

guilty.55 In other words, when DOJ and the defendant agree to certain 

terms as part of a plea agreement in which the defendant pleads 

guilty to one or more charged offenses, or lesser or related offenses, 

prosecutors must consider requesting the defendant pay restitution for 

all of the charges, not just the ones to which the defendant is pleading 

guilty.56 As a result, federal courts may order restitution pursuant to 

the plea agreement for losses sustained by crime victims for related 

conduct or criminal conduct that is not part of the offense of 

conviction.

Federal courts currently have the authority to order an offender to pay 

restitution to victims who have suffered harms as a direct and proximate 

consequence of the crime of conviction. This means that the harm must 

have been not only caused by the offense, as a matter of fact, but also 

that it was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the offense. For 

example, courts have allowed damage caused by the escape from a 

robbery—such as damage to police cars hit during a car chase—to be 

compensable as restitution because the flight was casually related to the 

bank robbery.57 Although 5 of 10 stakeholders stated that the proximate 

harm requirement does not generally present challenges related to 

federal courts’ authority to order restitution, stakeholders identified 

additional factors to consider if the federal courts’ authority were to be 

expanded to eliminate the proximate cause requirement:

• Additional sentencing-related hearings and litigation. Three of 10 

stakeholders we interviewed stated that eliminating the proximate 

 55Section 209 of the MVRA directed the Attorney General to, among other things, ensure 

that “in all plea agreements negotiated by the United States, consideration is given to 

requesting that the defendant provide full restitution to all victims of all charges contained 

in the indictment or information, without regard to the counts to which the defendant 

actually pleaded.” Pub. L. No. 104-132, tit. II, subtit. A, § 209, 110 Stat. at 1240. 

56In a plea agreement, the defendant may plead guilty to the original or another charge in 

return for some concession from the prosecutor; for example, the plea agreement may 

specify that the prosecutor will not bring other charges or will recommend a particular 

sentence. DOJ and defense counsel present the agreement to the court, which does not 

have to accept the agreement. If the court rejects the plea agreement, the defendant may 

withdraw the guilty plea and the case may proceed to trial. Courts are not permitted to 

participate in plea discussions between the prosecutor and defendant’s counsel. Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11.

57See United States v. Washington, 434 F.3d 1265, 1268-70 (11th Cir. 2006). See also

United States v. Reichow, 416 F.3d 802, 805 (8th Cir. 2005) and United States v. Donaby, 

349 F.3d 1046, 1053-54 (7th Cir. 2003).

Proximate Cause
Page 19 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

harm requirement could result in prolonged sentencing for defendants 

due to additional sentencing-related hearings and litigation. For 

example, judiciary officials and an association representing federal 

prosecutors stated that if federal courts’ authority to order restitution 

were expanded to eliminate the proximate harm requirement, more 

litigation would be required during sentencing to examine harms to 

victims and to determine how losses related to the offense of 

conviction.

• Plea bargaining could be affected. Two of 10 stakeholders we 

interviewed stated that eliminating the proximate harm requirement 

would impact plea bargaining between defendants and DOJ. For 

example, an individual knowledgeable about federal restitution stated 

that eliminating proximate harm would hinder plea bargaining as 

during plea agreement negotiations a defendant would no longer have 

a sense of how much federal criminal restitution could be ordered. At 

the time the MVRA was passed, Congress also recognized the central 

role of plea bargaining in the federal criminal justice system with the 

legislative history of the MVRA noting the intent that the legislation not 

impair the role of plea bargaining.58

In cases involving the death of a crime victim, federal courts may order 

restitution for losses to be paid to a deceased crime victim’s surviving 

family members or estate, including for funeral expenses, as applicable.59

Further, according to 6 of 10 stakeholders we interviewed, federal courts 

currently have the authority to order compensation for future lost income 

of a deceased crime victim’s family member or estate due to precedent 

established in case law. For example, the Tenth Circuit held that 

restitution for the future lost income of a three-month-old victim of 

voluntary manslaughter was not precluded by the MVRA; thus a court 

may exercise its discretion in declining to grant an award, or, as it did in 

this case, undertake such proceedings.60 In a Ninth Circuit case, the court 

held that “restitution for future lost income may be ordered under the 

MVRA so long as it is not based upon speculation, but is reasonably 

 58S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 19.

5918 U.S.C. §§ 3663(a)-(b), 3663A(a)-(b).

60United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112, 1120, 1125 (10th Cir. 2007).

Factors to Consider in the 

Potential Expansion of 

Restitution to Include 

Income Lost by Deceased 

Victims and Their Family 

Members
Page 20 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

calculable,” and returned the case to the district court to redetermine the 

amount of restitution to be awarded.61

Stakeholders we interviewed also identified the following factors to 

consider if federal courts’ authority were to be expanded to include 

compensation for the future lost income of a deceased crime victim and to 

compensate the deceased victim’s surviving family members for their lost 

income as a result of the victim’s death:

• Increased victim compensation awards. Four of 10 stakeholders 

we interviewed stated that expanding federal courts’ authority to 

include compensation for future lost income of a deceased crime 

victim could result in more compensation awarded through restitution. 

For example, three stakeholders representing victims stated if this 

provision were specified or made explicit in statute, it would be more 

likely that federal courts would order compensation for the future lost 

income of a deceased crime victim. One of the stakeholders added 

that having such loss specified and enumerated in restitution statutes 

would ensure it is considered during the restitution process and is less 

likely to be challenged during appeal. Further, another stakeholder 

representing victims stated that including the surviving family 

members’ lost income in a restitution order could allow for 

compensation of those family members who lost income prior to a 

victim’s death, such as in cases where those family members 

provided care to a victim prior to the victim’s death.

• Complexity of calculation and need for experts. Three of 10 

stakeholders we interviewed stated that determining a deceased 

crime victim’s future and family members’ lost income would add 

complexity to the restitution process. For example, an association 

representing federal prosecutors stated that it would be difficult for 

federal probation officers and prosecutors to determine the amount of 

future lost income for deceased victims as that area of specialization 

is currently in civil law. In addition, DOJ officials stated that the 

complexity and need for experts to make these specialized 

calculations could increase the cost of prosecution given the 

government’s burden to prove victim losses.

• Suitability of criminal versus civil proceedings. Three of 10 

stakeholders we interviewed stated that compensation for a deceased 

crime victim’s future and family members’ lost income is more 

 61United States v. Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 2006).
Page 21 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

appropriate for litigation through civil proceedings rather than 

combining or merging such litigation in a federal criminal proceeding. 

For example, an association representing defendants stated that 

federal criminal proceedings are not suitable venues to fairly vet and 

litigate this type of victim issue. This stakeholder further stated that 

issues of this type are routinely litigated vigorously in civil proceedings 

and involve extensive discovery practices, such as taking of 

depositions, exchanges of documents, and assessments by 

competing experts. An association representing federal prosecutors 

additionally noted that federal prosecutors are not well positioned to 

handle typical civil losses in criminal trials.

• Sentencing of defendants could be prolonged. Two of 10 

stakeholders we interviewed stated that including a deceased crime 

victim’s future and family members’ lost income in an order for 

restitution could result in a defendant’s sentencing being prolonged. 

For example, judiciary officials stated that the sentencing of 

defendants could take more time due to the need for multiple hearings 

to examine losses and calculate a deceased crime victim’s future lost 

income.

• Collectability of debt due to these offenders’ ability to pay. Two of 

10 stakeholders stated that the potential collectability of restitution 

from offenders for a deceased crime victim’s future and family 

members’ lost income should be considered. For example, an 

association representing federal prosecutors stated that these 

offenders are most likely to be incarcerated with the least ability to 

pay. As a result, the amount of resources needed to order restitution 

compared to collectability of the debt for a deceased crime victim’s 

future lost income should be considered. Further, according to that 

stakeholder, resources—such as prosecutorial expertise, money to 

hire experts, judicial resources like probation officers—need to be 

weighed against the collectability of the debt. This issue was also 

described in the legislative history of the MVRA:

[A] significant number of defendants required to pay 

restitution...will be indigent [and]... many...may also be 

sentenced to prison terms as well, making it unlikely that 

they will be able to make significant payments... At the 

same time, these factors do not obviate the victim’s right to 
Page 22 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

restitution or the need that defendants be ordered to pay 

restitution.62

According to 6 of 10 stakeholders we interviewed, the provision “to 

require that the defendant pay to the victim an amount determined by the 

court to restore the victim to the position he or she would have been in 

had the defendant not committed the offense” is already the goal of 

federal restitution. These stakeholders stated that this is established in 

case law and is not an expansion of federal courts’ current authority. 

Other stakeholders we interviewed identified the following factor to 

consider if federal courts’ authority were to be expanded to include the 

provision “to require that the defendant pay to the victim an amount 

determined by the court to restore the victim to the position he or she 

would have been in had the defendant not committed the offense”:

• Expansion of authority to include general restitution. Three of 10 

stakeholders we interviewed stated that the provision would expand 

federal courts’ authority to order restitution by allowing general 

restitution, meaning courts would have more discretion to determine 

awards for all harms that victims suffered in order to restore the victim 

to his or her pre-offense condition.63 Further, an association 

representing victims stated that federal courts’ authority to order 

restitution is listed as elements or categories of losses. For example, 

losses such as the cost of necessary physical and occupational 

therapy and rehabilitation, and necessary funeral and related 

services, among others. This association explained that by including a 

provision for general restitution, the courts would be able to order 

restitution to victims for any losses outside of those categories, which 

would function as a catchall for all victim harm.

 62S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 21. 

63In its September 2006 Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, the Judicial Conference agreed to support legislation that would authorize 

general restitution in any criminal case at the discretion of the judge when the 

circumstances of the case warrant it. Further, the Judicial Conference noted that there is 

no authorization under federal law for general restitution to crime victims and a judge may 

order restitution only if the loss suffered by the victim falls within certain categories 

specified by statute. In April 2017, judiciary officials told us the recommendation for 

general restitution is under reconsideration. 

Factors to Consider in the 

Potential Expansion of 

Restitution to Restore the 

Victim to His or Her 

Position Had the Offense 

Not Been Committed
Page 23 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Federal courts may order restitution for actual losses—in other words, 

these must be tangible or “out-of-pocket” losses, and they must be 

supported by the record.64 This includes, for example, reimbursement of 

medical expenses for bodily injuries resulting from the victimizing offense. 

However, federal courts are not authorized to order restitution for losses 

such as pain and suffering and emotional distress to crime victims. For 

example, in a case where the defendant was convicted of committing a 

brutal hate crime against the victim, leaving him with severe physical 

injuries and depression, among other harms, the sentencing court 

acknowledged that it did not have authority to award restitution for pain 

and suffering and noted that the victim would be allowed to pursue civil 

remedies.65 Stakeholders we interviewed identified the following factors to 

consider if federal courts’ authority were expanded to allow any injury, 

harm, or loss, including emotional distress, to be included in an order for 

restitution:

• Suitability of criminal versus civil proceedings. Five of 10 

stakeholders we interviewed stated that including compensation to 

victims for any injury, harm, or loss, including emotional distress, in 

restitution orders raises issues related to the types of harms that 

should be compensated in civil versus criminal proceedings. For 

example, a stakeholder representing defendants stated that federal 

criminal law is not suited to determine injuries such as emotional 

distress and pain and suffering, whereas the civil system is set up to 

handle these kinds of issues and losses. Further, an association 

representing federal prosecutors stated that federal prosecutors and 

federal probation officers in criminal cases lack the specialized skills 

to determine losses for cases involving compensation for pain, 

 64See, e.g., United States v. Frazier, 651 F.3d 899, 904-08 (8th Cir. 2011) (limiting 

restitution to the full amount of victim's actual, provable loss); Goodwin, Federal Criminal 

Restitution, 256-257.

65United States v. Serrata, 679 Fed. Appx. 337, 339, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2454, at *3 

(5th Cir. Feb. 10, 2017). Other types of civil remedies are also not compensable as 

criminal restitution, such as intended harm, punitive damages, breach of contract, and 

disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, among others. For example, in a case before the Eighth 

Circuit, the defendant was convicted of selling CDs he had removed from the trash and 

had made $78,818 in profits. United States v. Chalupnik, 514 F.3d 748, 750-51 (8th Cir. 

2008). The lower court ordered the defendant pay $78,818 in restitution, noting that this 

was an appropriate amount because the victim could recover these ill-gotten gains in a 

civil law suit. Id. at 751. The Eighth Circuit vacated the restitution award and remanded for 

resentencing because “the amount of restitution that may be awarded is limited to the 

victim's provable actual loss, even if more punitive remedies would be available in a civil 

action.” Id. at 750, 754. 

Factors to Consider in the 

Potential Expansion of 

Restitution to Include Any 

Injury, Harm, or Loss, 

Including Emotional 

Distress That Occurred as 

a Result of an Offense
Page 24 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

suffering, and emotional distress. This was an issue that was 

considered during passage of the MVRA as well, as the report 

accompanying the MVRA provides, “It is the committee’s intent that 

courts order full restitution to all identifiable victims of covered 

offenses, while guaranteeing that the sentencing phase of criminal 

trials do not become fora for the determination of facts and issues 

better suited to civil proceedings.”66

• Increased complexity to determine losses. Four of 10 stakeholders 

we interviewed stated that determining losses such as emotional 

distress and pain and suffering would add complexity to the restitution 

process. For example, DOJ officials stated that pain and suffering and 

emotional distress are not easily quantified and restitution hearings to 

examine such losses would involve experts trying to prove these kinds 

of losses.

Stakeholders we interviewed identified the following factors to consider 

related to the potential broadening of courts’ authority to order restitution 

generally, in addition to the factors discussed above associated with 

particular expansions of federal courts’ authority to order restitution:

• Increased restitution debt and collection challenges. Seven of 10 

stakeholders we interviewed told us that increased restitution debt 

and collectability challenges should be considered in the potential 

broadening of federal courts’ authority to order restitution. For 

example, two stakeholders representing defendants stated that 

offenders often lack the financial resources to pay restitution. Under 

the MVRA, federal courts must order mandatory restitution without 

consideration of a defendant’s financial resources which has resulted 

in large amounts of uncollected federal restitution debt.67 These two 

stakeholders stated that by broadening federal courts’ authority to 

order restitution, the amount of uncollected restitution debt owed to

victims would continue to increase. One of these stakeholders further 

suggested that the addition of secondary restitution (i.e., additional 

victims entitled to compensation) could have the effect of reducing the 

amount paid to the primary victims because all classes of victims will 

be forced to compete for payment on restitution awards that will often 

far exceed an offender’s ability to pay. According to judiciary officials, 

 66S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 18. 

67According to data DOJ provided to us, the amount of outstanding restitution debt owed 

in federal cases as of the end of fiscal year 2016 was $110.2 billion. 

Stakeholders Identified 

Additional Factors to 

Consider Related to the 

Potential Expansion of 

Courts’ Authority to Award 

Restitution
Page 25 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

adding to the uncollected restitution debt would lead to further 

collection challenges, including the additional DOJ efforts needed to 

collect more restitution debt and additional supervision of offender 

restitution payments by probation officers.68 These issues were also 

observed during the passage of the MVRA. The report accompanying 

the law states that the Chair of the Criminal Law Committee of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States had testified before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee that 85 percent of all federal defendants 

are indigent at the time of sentencing and mandatory restitution would 

not lead to an appreciable increase in victim compensation; however, 

the report noted the Committee’s view of the benefits of even nominal 

payments to victims as well as the potential penalogical benefits of 

requiring the offender to be accountable for the harm caused to the 

victim.69

• Suitability of criminal versus civil proceedings. Seven of 10 

stakeholders we interviewed told us that the suitability of criminal 

versus civil proceedings should be considered in the potential 

broadening of federal courts’ authority to order restitution. According 

to judiciary officials, a system has been developed with rules to litigate 

damages in civil proceedings which are not included within criminal 

trials. Further, an association representing defendants told us that 

attorneys who directly represent alleged victims in civil proceedings 

are more appropriate parties to pursue this type of litigation. The 

association said this is because the prosecutor represents the public 

at large instead of an individual client, whereas a private attorney has 

an obligation to obtain a maximum recovery for the client. Comparing 

the process for the compensation of victims through restitution and 

civil proceedings, a stakeholder knowledgeable about federal 

restitution told us that the restitution process to compensate victims is 

more efficient for victims compared to civil proceedings which can last 

longer and result in victims incurring costs for ligation. Further, this 

individual stated that through the federal criminal restitution process in 

contrast to civil proceedings, victims receive help collecting funds 

through the federal courts, prisons, and probation officers during 

offender supervision. Other stakeholders did not consider the civil 

forum to be a suitable alternative for victims. One stakeholder 

 68DOJ efforts for debt collection include conducting financial investigations of offenders 

and filing garnishments and liens, among other things. 

69S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 18. Penological interests are interests that relate to the 

treatment (including punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.) of persons convicted of 

crimes.
Page 26 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

representing victims stated that civil proceedings are inadequate for 

compensating victims and should not be considered. Additionally, 

another stakeholder representing victims also stated that victims may 

lack access to evidence to pursue civil litigation against an offender in 

cases where the conduct was not part of an offense of conviction or 

listed in a plea agreement.70 The legislative history of the MVRA also 

acknowledged the need for a balance, providing, as noted above, the 

intent that courts order full restitution but also that sentencing not 

become a forum for issues better suited to civil proceedings; to that 

end, the MVRA restricted mandatory restitution requirements to the 

specified set of crimes.71

• Impacts to federal resources. Five of 10 stakeholders we 

interviewed told us that impacts to judiciary and DOJ resources—

including increased workloads, additional legal services, and the need 

for more experts—should be considered in the potential broadening of 

federal courts’ authority to order restitution. According to judiciary 

officials, broadening federal courts’ authority to order restitution could 

result in increased workloads by probation officers who could have to 

conduct more investigations to support additional restitution orders. 

As discussed above, federal probation officers could also be required 

to track and supervise more restitution payments. Officials from 

Federal and Community Defenders told us that if federal courts’

authority to order restitution were broadened, additional legal services 

would need to be provided to offenders. For example, these officials 

stated that larger restitution orders could require increased workloads 

for federal defenders to work on behalf of offenders to modify 

 70Under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(l) a defendant’s conviction for an offense involving the act 

giving rise to an order of restitution prevents the defendant from denying the essential 

allegations of that offense in a subsequent civil proceeding brought by the victim. 

However, this would not apply to offenses that were charged but where there was no 

conviction. A party seeking material from DOJ’s case files is generally required to make a 

request pursuant to DOJ’s administrative regulations (“Touhy regulations”). These

regulations provide discretion to DOJ as to whether or not to comply with such a request, 

and require approval from the proper DOJ officials before release. 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.21 to 

16.29; see also, e.g., Aiken v. Eady, Civil Action No. 14-811, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

13932, at *13 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2016) (“However, it seems clear that, pursuant to Touhy, 

most courts require a party seeking information from the Government, as a non-party, to 

make a request to the DOJ pursuant to their administrative regulations. The DOJ then has 

discretion in responding to the request. If the requesting party is dissatisfied with what is 

obtained in the administrative process, review may be sought either through a separate 

action commenced pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, or alternatively, in the 

Court from which the subpoena was served pursuant to Rule 45.”) (citing United States ex 

rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951)). 

71S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 18.
Page 27 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

payment schedules and their level of supervision by probation 

officers. Likewise, an association representing defendants stated that 

increased collection efforts could be required by U.S. Attorneys’

Offices’ Financial Litigation Units if the number of victims eligible for 

restitution increased. According to DOJ officials, prosecutors could 

experience increased workloads as they would be identifying more 

victims, thereby having to spend more time investigating and 

determining losses. Moreover, an association representing 

defendants told us that additional federal experts could be needed as 

sentencing courts and probation officers lack the resources and 

expertise to examine the harms that would result from broadening 

restitution authority. Attention to the costs to the justice system for 

mandatory restitution was considered in 1995, with the legislative 

history of the MVRA noting the attempt to reduce costs by limiting 

mandatory restitution to offenses in which an identifiable victim 

suffered a physical injury or monetary loss.72

• Concerns about offenders’ reentry into society. Two of 10 

stakeholders we interviewed told us that offenders’ reentry into society 

should be considered in the potential broadening of federal courts’

authority to order restitution. These two stakeholders, an association 

that represents defendants and officials from Federal and Community 

Defenders, told us that if the authority of the federal courts to order 

restitution were broadened to include non-monetary harms, offenders 

would be further burdened in their ability to reenter society due to 

excessive monetary sanctions from restitution orders. Further, these 

two stakeholders stated that offenders with large restitution orders 

face challenges obtaining employment, securing housing, and 

satisfying other financial obligations, which could increase their risk for 

recidivism and reduce their ability to pay any restitution.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOJ, USSC, 

the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Federal Judicial 

Center. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts provided technical 

comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

 72S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 18. The report also notes the intent that the amendment 

streamlining the process for issuing and enforcing an order of restitution will also reduce 

the costs associated with victim restitution. Id. 

Agency Comments
Page 28 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, the Judicial 

Conference of the United States, the Directors of the Administrative Office 

of the U.S. Courts and the Federal Judicial Center, the Staff Director of 

USSC, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at 

no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you and your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions are 

listed in appendix III. 

Gretta L. Goodwin

Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: Overview of Restitution Provisions 

for Potential Expansion in the Justice for All 

Reauthorization Act of 2016

Page 29 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Table 2 summarizes and describes the provisions included in the Justice 

for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 for potential expansion of federal 

courts’ authority to order restitution and the factors cited by stakeholders 

that Congress should consider in broadening existing restitution statutes.1

 1

Pub. L. No. 114-324, § 2(d), 130 Stat. 1948, 1948-49. 

Appendix I: Overview of Restitution 

Provisions for Potential Expansion in the 

Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016
Appendix I: Overview of Restitution Provisions 

for Potential Expansion in the Justice for All 

Reauthorization Act of 2016

Page 30 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Table 2: Provisions for Potential Expansion of Federal Courts’ Authority to Order Restitution in the Justice for All 

Reauthorization Act of 2016 and Factors Cited by Stakeholders in the Restitution Process

Potential expansion of 

restitution authoritya Potential expansion

Factors to consider cited by 

stakeholders interviewed

“to apply to victims who have 

suffered harm, injury, or loss that 

would not have occurred but for 

the defendant’s related conduct”

The provision may expand the authority of the 

federal courts to provide for restitution for losses 

resulting from the defendant’s conduct that was 

related to, but not a basis for, the defendant’s 

conviction; and to eliminate the proximate cause 

requirement to make a defendant liable for all harms 

caused by his or her actions. In order to be awarded 

restitution under existing law, a victim must be 

directly and proximately harmed as a result of the 

commission of the offense. This means that the 

victim’s harm must have been directly caused by the 

defendant’s conduct underlying the offense of 

conviction (“but for”) and that the harm was 

reasonably foreseeable at the time of the offense.

Expansion to include related conduct:

• Constitutional issues.

• Increased complexity to determine 

losses.

• Department of Justice practices for 

plea bargaining.

• Increase in litigation in the federal 

courts.

• Sentencing of defendants could be 

prolonged.

• Increase in victim compensation 

awards.

• Less burdensome on prosecutorial 

resources in some offense contexts, 

such as child pornography offenses.

• Suitability of criminal versus civil 

proceedings.

• Decrease in victim compensation 

awards.

• Plea bargaining could be affected.

• Low likelihood of implementation.

• Defendants should bear the burden of 

victims’ losses.

• May reduce collectability of restitution 

for primary victims.

• Impacts to federal resources.

Expansion to eliminate proximate cause 

requirement:

• No issues with current statutes for 

proximate harm.

• Plea bargaining could be affected.

• Additional sentencing-related hearings 

and litigation.

• Suitability of criminal versus civil 

proceedings.

• Increased burdens on victims to 

provide information to support losses.

• Burden to restitution process because 

more victims and harms.

• Constitutional issues.

• Adverse impacts to defendants due to 

broader class of victims.
Appendix I: Overview of Restitution Provisions 

for Potential Expansion in the Justice for All 

Reauthorization Act of 2016

Page 31 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Potential expansion of 

restitution authoritya Potential expansion

Factors to consider cited by 

stakeholders interviewed

• Successful example in practice in state 

criminal proceedings.

• Low likelihood of implementation.

• Additional judicial discretion.

“in the case of an offense resulting 

in bodily injury resulting in the 

victim’s death, to allow the court to 

use its discretion to award an 

appropriate sum to reflect the 

income lost by the victim’s 

surviving family members or 

estate as a result of the victim’s 

death”

The provision may clarify or expand the federal 

courts’ authority to order restitution to compensate 

the deceased victim’s surviving family members for 

their lost income as a result of the victim’s death and 

to the victim’s estate for the future lost income of the 

deceased victim. Case law currently allows for future 

lost income to be compensable in certain 

circumstances.

• Courts have the authority through case 

law.

• Increased victim compensation 

awards.

• Suitability of criminal versus civil 

proceedings.

• Low likelihood of implementation.

• Complexity of calculation and need for 

experts.

• Sentencing of defendants could be 

prolonged.

• Collectability of debt due to these 

offenders’ ability to pay.

• Concerns about offenders’ re-entry into 

society.

“to require that the defendant pay 

to the victim an amount 

determined by the court to restore 

the victim to the position he or she 

would have been in had the 

defendant not committed the 

offense”

The provision provides for language consistent with 

how restitution has been defined in case law and 

may expand restitution to allow federal courts the 

discretion to order restitution for losses not 

otherwise enumerated by existing statutes.

• Provision states the goal of federal 

restitution.

• Expansion of authority to include 

general restitution.

• Increased litigation related to victim 

compensation awards.

• Increased complexity to determine 

losses.

• Inconsistency of restitution awards.

• Suitability of criminal versus civil 

proceedings.

• Increased victim compensation 

awards.
Appendix I: Overview of Restitution Provisions 

for Potential Expansion in the Justice for All 

Reauthorization Act of 2016

Page 32 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Potential expansion of 

restitution authoritya Potential expansion

Factors to consider cited by 

stakeholders interviewed

“to require that the defendant 

compensate the victim for any 

injury, harm, or loss, including 

emotional distress, that occurred 

as a result of the offense”

The provision may expand the federal courts’

authority to order restitution for damages not 

currently compensable by statute, including losses 

typically determined in civil proceedings, such as 

emotional distress and pain and suffering.

• Suitability of criminal versus civil 

proceedings.

• Increased complexity to determine 

losses.

• Sentencing of defendants could be 

prolonged.

• Inadequacy of civil proceedings to 

compensate victims.

• Constitutional issues.

• Defendants may be less willing to plea 

bargain.

• Could burden all parties in the 

restitution process.

• Could lead to inconsistency in victim 

compensation awards.

• Compensation should be for direct 

economic losses closely tied to the 

offense.

• Victims’ compensation awards could 

be reduced due to increased 

complexity of determining losses.

• Victims’ compensation could be 

increased due to fewer proceedings.

Source: GAO analysis of statutes, case law, and stakeholder interviews. | GAO-18-115

a

As provided in the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-324, § 2(d), 130 Stat. 

1948, 1948-49.

.
Appendix II: Restitution Imposed by the 

Federal Courts from Fiscal Years 1996 through 

2016

Page 33 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Table 3 and 4 summarize restitution imposed by the federal courts from 

fiscal years 1996 through 2016 for individual and organizational 

offenders.

Table 3: Restitution Imposed for Individual and Organizational Offenders by the U.S. Courts, Fiscal Years 1996 through 2016 

Fiscal 

year 

Total number 

of individual 

offenders

Number of 

individual 

offenders 

(restitution)

Total

number of 

organizational 

offenders

Number of 

organizational 

offenders 

(restitution)

Total number 

of offenders

Total number 

of offenders 

(restitution)

Percent

of total 

offenders 

(restitution)

1996 42,151 8,315 155 46 42,306 8,361 19.76%

1997 48,522 9,575 222 70 48,744 9,645 19.79%

1998 50,360 9,655 213 72 50,573 9,727 19.23%

1999 54,924 10,052 255 90 55,179 10,142 18.38%

2000 59,283 9,779 296 100 59,579 9,879 16.58%

2001 59,047 9,414 237 79 59,284 9,493 16.01%

2002 62,684 9,012 252 113 62,936 9,125 14.50%

2003 68,465 9,003 200 83 68,665 9,086 13.23%

2004 69,333 9,861 130 39 69,463 9,900 14.25%

2005 71,510 8,857 187 64 71,697 8,921 12.44%

2006 72,148 9,578 217 61 72,365 9,639 13.32%

2007 72,643 10,389 196 62 72,839 10,451 14.35%

2008 76,353 10,292 198 65 76,551 10,357 13.53%

2009 81,328 10,040 177 52 81,505 10,092 12.38%

2010 83,926 11,041 148 35 84,074 11,076 13.17%

2011 86,172 11,453 160 52 86,332 11,505 13.33%

2012 84,153 11,835 187 40 84,340 11,875 14.08%

2013 80,033 11,410 172 49 80,205 11,459 14.29%

2014 75,833 11,651 162 48 75,995 11,699 15.39%

2015 71,003 11,132 181 56 71,184 11,188 15.72%

2016 67,742 10,375 132 37 67,874 10,412 15.34%

Total 1,437,613 212,719 4,077 1,313 1,441,690 214,032 14.85%

Source: U.S. Sentencing Commission data. | GAO-18-115

Appendix II: Restitution Imposed by the 

Federal Courts from Fiscal Years 1996 

through 2016
Appendix II: Restitution Imposed by the 

Federal Courts from Fiscal Years 1996 through 

2016

Page 34 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Table 4: Amount of Restitution Imposed at Sentencing for Individual and Organizational Offenders by the U.S. Courts, Fiscal 

Years 1996 through 2016 (U.S. dollars)

Fiscal year 

Amount of restitution

imposed for individual offenders

Amount of restitution

imposed for organizational offenders

Total amount

of restitution imposed

1996 $1,436,928,571 N/Aa $1,436,928,571

1997 $1,473,942,805 N/Aa $1,473,942,805

1998 $2,541,766,654 N/Aa $2,541,766,654

1999 $2,838,524,724 N/Aa $2,838,524,724

2000 $4,097,524,800 $76,037,843 $4,173,562,643

2001 $2,934,298,443 $318,418,643 $3,252,717,086

2002 $5,604,073,972 $704,776,852 $6,308,850,824

2003 $9,283,825,823 $187,267,646 $9,471,093,469

2004 $5,902,998,735 $252,907,942 $6,155,906,677

2005 $8,762,092,868 $89,668,413 $8,851,761,281

2006 $4,872,160,002 $120,572,166 $4,992,732,168

2007 $10,224,762,012 $191,626,000 $10,416,388,012

2008 $16,779,256,356 $405,143,107 $17,184,399,463

2009 $13,991,110,807 $82,752,528 $14,073,863,335

2010 $8,138,763,331 $624,396,068 $8,763,159,399

2011 $13,596,971,681 $119,057,879 $13,716,029,560

2012 $13,406,049,682 $17,897,607 $13,423,947,289

2013 $12,126,996,662 $158,564,574 $12,285,561,236

2014 $14,157,238,075 $55,330,593 $14,212,568,668

2015 $10,709,898,260 $1,090,430,902 $11,800,329,162

2016 $9,062,148,439 $184,334,943 $9,246,483,382

Total $171,941,332,702b $4,679,183,706b $176,620,516,408b

Source: U.S. Sentencing Commission data. | GAO-18-115

a

N/A stands for not applicable. The U.S. Sentencing Commission was unable to provide data on the 

amount of restitution imposed for organizational offenders from fiscal years 1996 through 1999.

b

According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in cases of joint and several restitution, the full 

amount of restitution is attributed to each offender, which may result in over-inflation of the total 

amount of restitution reported for all offenders.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 35 GAO-18-115 Federal Criminal Restitution

Gretta L. Goodwin, (202) 512-8777, goodwing@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director); 

Carl Potenzieri; Janet Temko-Blinder; David Alexander; Sasan J. “Jon” 

Najmi; Amber Edwards; Kathleen Donovan; and Emily Hutz, made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(101419)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.