Restitution for service costs
Israilov v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Roman Israilov asked the Supreme Court to review whether a federal judge may order repayment to fraud victims for services they received that they otherwise would have had to pay for.
- Who it affects
- The denial ended Israilov’s request for Supreme Court review but did not decide whether the restitution law allows this kind of repayment.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear his petition (denied review), so it did not decide that legal question.
The dispute concerns how the federal Mandatory Victims Restitution Act counts losses when courts set repayment for fraud victims.
Question presented
Should the Court should grant the petition in order to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals and among the panels of the Second Circuit as to whether under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A et seq ., a district court is authorized to include in a restitution award the value of services received by the victims, for which the victims would have been required to pay had there been no fraud?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.