Fifth Circuit Reluctantly Holds that Government May Collect Both Restitution and Forfeiture When it is Victim

by Locke Lord LLP

Locke Lord LLP

When recovering the loss amount due to commission of a crime, the criminal justice system has two main tools: forfeiture and restitution.  Forfeiture gives the government the authority to seize a defendant’s assets that were acquired as a result of criminal activity.  Restitution, on the other hand, requires a defendant to pay back its victims for the damage the defendant caused.  While it would seem natural to seize a criminal’s ill-gotten gains through forfeiture and then return them to the victims as part of the restitution, the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Sanjar held that when the government is the victim it may, essentially, collect twice — by both seizing assets through forfeiture and requiring a defendant to separately pay restitution.1

The Fifth Circuit’s Sanjar opinion came on the heels of what was already a marked year for forfeiture law.  In June, the Supreme Court decided Honeycutt v. United States, holding that co-conspirators charged with certain drug crimes are only required to forfeit assets up to the amount that the defendant received from the crime.2  Thus, Honeycutt specifically rejected the government’s position that a forfeiture order could be applied to co-conspirators for joint and several liability of the full amount of the conspiracy.  Then, in July, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) revoked a previous Obama-era prohibition on federal adoptions of assets seized by state and local law enforcement aimed at curbing abuses in asset forfeiture.3  After renewed bi-partisan criticism of asset forfeiture abuses, however, the DOJ appointed an Asset Forfeiture Accountability Director in October.4  Criminal justice attorneys have since awaited an opinion like Sanjar to see if the 2017 changes to forfeiture law would equally apply to restitution.  Sanjar forks the roads between forfeiture and restitution, increasing the protections afforded to criminal defendants for the former while undercutting them for the latter.

Defendant Dr. Mansour Sanjar (“Sanjar”) and five others were convicted on a mix of substantive and conspiracy counts of healthcare fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1347, and Anti-Kickback Statute violations, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, for their partial hospitalization program (“PHP”).5  Throughout trial, the government demonstrated that the defendants’ community mental-health center PHP was a “Mickey Mouse facility” that both treated patients when treatment was unnecessary and billed time spent watching movies or listening to music as intensive medical treatment.6  Although several of the defendants and the government raised an array of issues on appeal, the Fifth Circuit’s three rulings related to the trial court’s forfeiture and restitution orders are particularly significant.7

First, defendants appealed the amount of their restitution order.8  Even if they defrauded the government, defendants contended that they were entitled to a credit for the value of the medical services that they did provide.9 The Fifth Circuit disagreed.10  Defendants, according to the Court, only presented expert testimony showing that the PHP’s patients qualified for its medical services based on an analysis of the patients’ records.11 The government, however, presented ample evidence that the records themselves were falsified and, therefore, not reliable.12  As such, defendants had not demonstrated that any of the medical services were necessary in the first place, much less that they warranted a restitution credit.13

The government also appealed the amount of the trial court’s restitution order on different grounds.14  Because the government would be the nominal recipient of both the restitution amount and the forfeited proceeds, the trial court offset the defendants’ restitution order by the amount of the forfeiture order.15  This, the government insisted, was impermissible.16  After reviewing the case law of other circuit courts facing the issue, the Fifth Circuit ruled in the government’s favor, explaining, “both restitution and criminal forfeiture are mandatory features of criminal sentencing that a district court does not have authority to offset.”17  Still, the Court expressed concern regarding its ruling by stating, “We have difficulty seeing why amounts the Department of Justice collects through forfeiture should not be transferred to the victim agency.  And that appears to be DOJ policy . . . .  But Congress left it to the executive branch to decide whether to follow through on that sensible policy.”18

Finally, Defendant Adam Main (“Main”) challenged the forfeiture judgment against him.19  The trial court issued a judgment of over $4 million dollars reflecting the gross proceeds the conspiracy generated during Main’s employment at the PHP.20  Main, however, only received $120,000 from the conspiracy.21  Thus, Main argued, the forfeiture judgment against him should be limited to that amount.22  The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the forfeiture order against Main and held that the healthcare fraud forfeiture statute does not provide for joint and several co-conspirator liability, similar to the drug forfeiture statute in Honeycutt.23

Notably, the Fifth Circuit also stated that the applicable restitution statute expressly authorizes joint and several liability, unlike the forfeiture statute.24  While the Court reserved ruling on joint and several liability under the restitution statute, this caveat implies that the Court is inclined to rule that co-defendants in a healthcare fraud conspiracy may be held jointly and severally liable for restitution orders in an amount for the harm the entire conspiracy caused, regardless of each individual defendant’s culpability.

The Fifth Circuit drew several clear lines with the Sanjar opinion.  First, criminal defendants convicted of a healthcare fraud conspiracy are now assured that they will only forfeit the proceeds that they individually obtained and not the entire amount of the conspiracy.  When it comes to restitution, however, defendants may be jointly and severally liable for the entire conspiracy.  Finally, when the government is the victim of a healthcare fraud conspiracy, the district court does not have the discretion to offset assets seized by forfeiture against the restitution order.  With such high stakes, healthcare practitioners are best served by implementing compliance programs, conducting internal investigations, and staying current on rapidly evolving healthcare laws. 

1 876 F.3d 725, 750-­51 (5th Cir. 2017).  
2 — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1626, 1635 (2017).
3 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General Sessions Issues Policy and Guidelines on Federal Adoptions of Assets Seized by State or Local Law Enforcement (July 19, 2017).  See also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General Prohibits Federal Agency Adoptions of Assets Seized by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Except Where Needed to Protect Public Safety (Jan. 16, 2015).
4 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General Sessions Announces Director of Asset Forfeiture Accountability (Oct. 17, 2017).
Sanjar, 876 F.3d at 735. Id. at 733–34.
6Id. at 747.
7Id. at 747-48.
8Id. at 748.
13Id. at 750.
14See id.
16Id. at 751.
17Id. (citations omitted).
18Id. at 748.
22Id. at 749-50.
23Id. at 749 n.15.
24 Id. at 749 n.15.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Locke Lord LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Locke Lord LLP

Locke Lord LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.