Background
Greg E. Lindberg pleaded guilty to conspiracy, wire fraud, investment advisor fraud, and money laundering. He had purchased shares in Nederlandsche Algemeene Maatschappij Van Levensverzekering Conservatrix N.V. and agreed to maintain a minimum solvency capital ratio. Lindberg failed to replenish capital shortfalls, leading to the company’s insolvency. A special master identified victims for restitution and excluded Conservatrix, finding the losses were not due to Lindberg’s criminal conduct but rather his investment activities. The district court adopted this exclusion, prompting the petitioners to seek a writ of mandamus.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied ordinary standards of appellate review to the petition. Under the Crime Victims Rights Act, a victim must be directly and proximately harmed by the federal offense. The court found that the petitioners did not identify facts closely tying the company’s failure to receive capital contributions to Lindberg’s criminal activities. The harm described was not closely related to the conduct inherent to the offense but was tangentially linked.
The dissent
I would deny the petition for mandamus relief without prejudice and for differing reasons.
KING
What it means going forward
The decision confirms that entities seeking restitution under the Crime Victims Rights Act must demonstrate a direct and proximate causal link between the criminal conduct and their specific losses. It also highlights the procedural requirement that victims must file a motion in the district court to assert CVRA rights before seeking appellate review.