The general concept of criminal restitution—perpetrators having to repay their victims any losses caused by their illegal actions—has been around for ages.
In the U.S., there are various restitution laws at both the state and federal level. One of the more significant federal laws on restitution was the Mandatory Restitution Act of 1996, which established procedures for determining the amount of restitution to which a victim may be entitled and made restitution mandatory for many types of federal crimes.
Restitution is an attempt to make crime victims whole again—basically to “restore” them to the same condition they were in before being victimized. Which makes the recent case of a Liberty, Missouri lawyer charged with obstruction of justice by stealing victim restitution funds seem all the more abhorrent.
Attorney Robert J. Young was legally representing a Missouri man who had been indicted and convicted in federal court of a fraudulent scheme to steal money from his employer. The defendant—who worked as the director of information technology at a Midwest construction company—stole hundreds of thousands of dollars by using his company credit card to purchase unnecessary equipment and then reselling it for personal profit. The defendant used the illegal proceeds to buy such luxury items as customized motorcycles, a boat, jet skis, and a large motor home.
Young’s client, who was ultimately sentenced to a federal prison term, had also been ordered to pay a total of $442,000 in restitution to his company. His initial sentencing hearing had been set for January 2016, and Young had made it known to court personnel in advance that his client would be making a partial restitution payment at that hearing.
Before the January hearing, the defendant’s wife had given Young more than $62,000 for her husband’s partial restitution payment through several deposits to the lawyer’s client trust account and business account as well a personal check. But at the January 2016 sentencing hearing, Young did not make the partial restitution payment on behalf of his client. Instead, he told the court that the funds were still in his client trust account, so the hearing was postponed until March 2016.