Opinion ID: 182111
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The VWPA

Text: Having denied mandatory restitution under the MVRA, the district court considered and rejected discretionary restitution under the VWPA, adopting the magistrate judge's conclusion that South Africa was not a victim of defendants' crime. United States v. Bengis, 03 Crim. 308, 2007 WL 2669315, at  1. In order to be a victim for the purposes of the VWPA, the loss sustained must be `caused by the offense of conviction.' United States v. Bengis, 03 Crim. 308, 2007 WL 1450381, at  (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2007) (quoting United States v. Silkowski, 32 F.3d 682, 689 (2d Cir.1994)). The underlying violation of the Lacey Actthe crime to which defendants pleaded guiltyrelated to the trade in illegally obtained lobsters and not the overfishing of lobster in South African waters. That is, the district court concluded, [i]t was not necessary for the government to have proved that the defendants . . . were the ones who took the fish in violation of South African law. United States v. Bengis, 03 Crim. 308, 2007 WL 2669315, at . Because the government's loss theories were predicated on the injury associated with the consequences of defendants' overfishing as opposed to its trading and the overfishing of lobster is not directly related to any of the required criminal conduct under the statutes to which defendants plead guilty, the district court concluded that South Africa is not a victim under the VWPA. United States v. Bengis, 03 Crim. 308, 2007 WL 1450381, at . Finally, the district court observed that, if discretionary restitution were available, calculating South Africa's injury would involve complex issues of foreign law as well as intricate questions of fact, as a result of which extensive further proceedings would be required. United States v. Bengis, 03 Crim. 308, 2007 WL 2669315, at . Accordingly, the district court held that, even if a restitution order pursuant to the VWPA were permissible, the complication and prolongation of the sentencing process resulting from the fashioning of an order of restitution under this section would outweigh the need to provide restitution in this case. Id.