The following excerpt is from Stake Ctr. Locating, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Nev. (In re Stake Ctr. Locating, Inc.), D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00089-JCM-GWF-1, No. 13-73267 (9th Cir. 2013):
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit a legal error in denying Stake Center's motion for forfeiture. First, the CVRA and Mandatory Victim Restitution Act ("MVRA") give victims a right to restitution, not a right to criminal forfeiture. The CVRA provides that a crime victim has the "right to full and timely restitution as provided in law." 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(6). The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act ("MVRA") requires that a "defendant make restitution to the victim" of certain offenses. 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1). Criminal forfeiture is not, as petitioner contends, a type of restitution; "[c]riminal forfeiture is . . . separate from restitution, which serves an entirely different purpose." United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011). Among other differences between restitution and forfeiture, only the criminal defendant is subject to restitution, not third parties. See 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1), (b)(1) (requiring that "defendant make restitution" and "defendant" return property).
Page 5
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.