United States v. Donaghy
2008 WL 2884748, 570 F. Supp. 2d 411, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56776 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), a court may only order restitution for losses caused by the specific criminal conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction. Restitution cannot be ordered for a defendant's similar, but separate, prior criminal conduct that was not part of the charged scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of activity.
Facts:
- From the 2003-04 season until November 2006, National Basketball Association (NBA) referee Timothy Donaghy provided betting recommendations on NBA games to his friend, Jack Concannon.
- During this period, Concannon placed bets on behalf of both himself and Donaghy, including on games that Donaghy officiated.
- In December 2006, James Battista and Thomas Martino confronted Donaghy, revealing their knowledge of his gambling activities.
- Battista and Martino proposed a new arrangement where Donaghy would provide betting picks on NBA games to them in exchange for cash payments for correct picks.
- This new arrangement involved Donaghy using non-public information obtained through his position as an NBA referee.
- The conspiracy among Donaghy, Battista, and Martino operated from approximately December 2006 to April 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy Donaghy pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to transmit wagering information.
- Co-conspirator Thomas Martino pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
- Co-conspirator James Battista pled guilty to conspiracy to transmit wagering information.
- The National Basketball Association (NBA), as a victim, sought restitution from all three defendants pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA).
- The NBA's restitution request included Donaghy's salary for the 2006-07 season as well as for the three preceding seasons (2003-2006), plus attorneys' fees and other investigation costs.
- The defendants objected to the amount of restitution, arguing that any award should be limited to losses incurred during the 2006-07 conspiracy and should not include losses from Donaghy's earlier, separate betting activities.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), does the scope of a criminal conspiracy for restitution purposes extend to include a defendant's similar, but separate, prior criminal conduct that was not part of the charged conspiracy?
Opinions:
Majority - Amon, District Judge
No. The scope of a criminal conspiracy for restitution purposes does not extend to include a defendant's similar, but separate, prior criminal conduct that was not part of the charged conspiracy. The court reasoned that while the MVRA allows restitution for all harm caused by a defendant's conduct 'in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern' of the convicted offense, it does not permit recovery for acts outside of that specific conspiracy. The court found that Donaghy's earlier betting arrangement with Jack Concannon was a completely separate scheme from the later conspiracy with James Battista and Thomas Martino, which was the 'offense of conviction.' The two arrangements involved different parties, different methods (Donaghy betting his own money vs. receiving a flat fee), and no mutual dependence or common goal. Therefore, the NBA's recoverable losses are limited to those incurred during the 2006-07 season, the timeframe of the convicted conspiracy.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the temporal and factual scope of restitution available to victims of conspiracy under the MVRA. It establishes that the 'offense of conviction' serves as a crucial boundary, preventing victims from seeking restitution for losses caused by any and all of a defendant's related bad acts, unless those acts were part of the specific conspiracy for which the defendant was convicted. The ruling emphasizes that courts must distinguish between a continuous, unitary criminal scheme and a series of separate, distinct criminal episodes, even if committed by the same person. This holding requires a detailed factual analysis of the conspiracy's participants, goals, and methods to determine the proper scope of a restitution award, providing a more defined limit on co-conspirator liability.
