Opinion ID: 6349245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The interviewer is entitled to restitution

Text: Now on to the merits. The District Court ordered Yung to pay the interviewer restitution for his investigative costs and attorney’s fees. The special restitution statute for cyberstalking victims is broad: it lets victims recover “attorneys’ fees” and “any … losses suffered … as a proximate result of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 2264(b)(3)(E), (G); see also Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684, 1689 (2018) (discussing § 2264). The question, then, is whether the interviewer’s losses were a “direct and foreseeable” result of the crime. Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434, 449 (2014) (parsing 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b), worded similarly to § 2264(b)). They were. Yung used pseudonyms to defame the interviewer and recruited others to threaten his family. To make that campaign of harassment stop, they needed to track Yung down, report him to the authorities, and get charges filed against him. Because those expenses were foreseeable, this restitution order is valid. 20