Opinion ID: 182111
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The MVRA

Text: With respect to the MVRA, the R & R concluded that pursuant to the limited categories of crimes for which restitution is mandatory, South Africa is entitled to restitution in this case only if the conduct to which defendants plead guilty constitutes an offense against property under Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii). United States v. Bengis, 03 Crim. 308, 2006 WL 3735654, at  (S.D.N.Y. Dec.19, 2006). Under our precedents, the R & R continued, the definition of property is limited to tangible property, see United States v. Cummings, 189 F.Supp.2d 67, 74 (S.D.N.Y.2002), and not purely regulatory interests in which the nature of [the] property cannot not be economic, Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 13, 121 S.Ct. 365, 148 L.Ed.2d 221 (2000). Id. at . Here, the magistrate judge concluded, South Africa confronts two obstacles. First, under South African law, the state does not own the fish in its territorial waters. Id. at . Defendants' acts of taking fish from South African waters that the South African government did not own, therefore does not provide the basis for any offenses against South African property that would trigger restitution under the MVRA. Id. at . Moreover, because the South African laws that provide the basis for defendants' underlying violations here involve no type of taxes or significant revenue for South Africa, the government cannot claim a property interest in a tax or other form of revenue connected to defendant's activity. Id. at  (distinguishing Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 355-57, 125 S.Ct. 1766, 161 L.Ed.2d 619 (2005), which concluded that the Canadian government holds a property interest in the substantial liquor tax revenue that defendants avoided paying as a result of their smuggling scheme). Finally, the district court rejected the argument that defendant's violation of the Lacey Act, itself, constituted an offense against property pursuant to Title 18. Id. at . Like the MLRA, the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(A) (criminalizing trade in any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold . . . in violation of any foreign law.), was enacted for regulatory, and not economic, purposes, as a result of which a violation thereof is not an offense against property. Id. at .