April 17, 2014

D.C. Circuit Holds Restitution Must Be Based on Loss of Victim, Not Defendant’s Gain

Addressing for the first time the issue of whether restitution (in the context of pirated copyrighted software) under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) may be based on a defendant’s profit, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated a restitution order and joined numerous other circuits in holding that restitution must be based on the quantifiable loss of the victim. United States v. Fair, Case No. 09-3120, (D.C. Cir., Nov. 9, 2012) (Rogers, J.).

From February 2001 to September 2007, Gregory Fair was involved in an infringement scheme in which he sold pirated outdated versions of Adobe Systems software on eBay.  Along with the outdated products, Fair included numerical codes that allowed buyers to update their software to the most recent versions at a reduced cost from Adobe Systems.  As a result of his scheme, customers were able to obtain current versions of the Adobe products at less than half the legitimate retail price.  Facing prosecution for his actions, Fair plead guilty to copyright infringement and mail fraud.  Pursuant to the MVRA, 18 U.S.C. §3663A, the district court ordered him to pay restitution to the copyright holder, Adobe Systems, in an amount equivalent to the revenue he received from his sales of the pirated products.  Fair appealed. 

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s restitution award, concluding that in ordering restitution pursuant to the MVRA, a district court may not substitute a defendant’s ill-gotten gains for the victim’s actual, provable loss.  The Court noted that the plain text of the MVRA makes clear that its scope is purely compensatory.  Thus, awarding restitution in excess of the victim’s actual loss would be punitive in nature and falls outside the scope of the MVRA.  The Court also noted that its holding is consistent with other circuit courts of appeals that have considered the issue and found that a defendant’s gain is not an appropriate measure of a victim’s actual loss in an MVRA calculation.

The MVRA places the burden on the government to prove the victim’s loss by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Court held that the district court abused its discretion because the government failed to ascertain or present evidence from which the district court could determine Adobe System’s actual loss or that Fair’s gain was equivalent to that loss.  For instance, the government could have surveyed Fair’s customers to determine whether they would have bought full-priced Adobe Systems products, if Fair’s products were not available.  The D.C. Circuit also rejected the government’s argument that requiring proof of lost profits would reward defendants by imposing on victims the task of quantifying each loss noting that the plain statutory text places the burden on the government, not the victim. 

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

McDermott Will & Emery is a premier international law firm with a diversified business practice. Numbering more than 1,100 lawyers, we have offices in Boston, Brussels, Chicago, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Houston,...

+1 312 372 2000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact