Jesse J. LaGrossa, left, and Edward Waddington, right, of Marcum. Courtesy photos Introductory Comments
Accurately determining the financial losses in white-collar federal criminal matters is vital to all parties as the loss may impact court-ordered restitution and the length of any incarceration imposed by the court. The guidelines manual issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission (often referred to as the federal sentencing guidelines), first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1987 provides recommendations that judges may consider when imposing a sentence. These guidelines correlate in part to the amount of loss attributable to the alleged misconduct with the length of a sentence; hence, the greater the loss, the longer the sentence. While federal judges may consider the sentencing guidelines, they are not obligated to adhere to them— hence the term "guidelines."Calculating the Cost of Crime: The Significance of Loss Determination in White-Collar Federal Cases
The considerations for determining the financial loss in a federal criminal matter are analogous to those a practitioner may employ in other issues requiring measuring a financial loss (i.e., damages in civil litigation).
May 09, 2024 at 10:05 AM
7 minute read
Jesse J. LaGrossa, left, and Edward Waddington, right, of Marcum. Courtesy photos
Introductory Comments
Accurately determining the financial losses in white-collar federal criminal matters is vital to all parties as the loss may impact court-ordered restitution and the length of any incarceration imposed by the court. The guidelines manual issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission (often referred to as the federal sentencing guidelines), first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1987 provides recommendations that judges may consider when imposing a sentence. These guidelines correlate in part to the amount of loss attributable to the alleged misconduct with the length of a sentence; hence, the greater the loss, the longer the sentence. While federal judges may consider the sentencing guidelines, they are not obligated to adhere to them— hence the term "guidelines."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Jefferson Doctor Hit With $6.8M Verdict Over Death of 64-Year-Old Cancer Patient
3 minute read
Bosworth Claims It Was Kline & Specter, Not Him, That Breached Settlement Terms
4 minute read
Slip-and-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Productivity Suite Startup Macro Announces $12 Million Funding Round
- 2Rudy Giuliani Loses Bid to Dismiss $1.3 Million Davidoff Hutcher & Citron Suit Over Unpaid Legal Fees
- 3Discovery Dispute: Investigated Judge Boxed Out by Work Product Doctrine
- 4Florida Supreme Court Paves Way for Attorney Fees Over $100k in Land Dispute
- 5How My Postpartum Depression Led to Launching My Firm’s Parental Leave Coaching Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
