Lagos v. United States
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 29, 2018 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- May 29, 2018
- Docket
- No. 16-1519
- Argued
- April 18, 2018
- Term
- October Term 2017
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer (wrote), Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Gorsuch
Oral argument transcript and advocates
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus LAGOS v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16–1519. Argued April 18, 2018—Decided May 29, 2018 Petitioner Sergio Fernando Lagos was convicted of using a company he controlled to defraud a lender of tens of millions of dollars. After the fraudulent scheme came to light and Lagos’ company went bankrupt, the lender conducted a private investigation of Lagos’ fraud and par- ticipated as a party in the company’s bankruptcy proceedings. Be- tween the private investigation and the bankruptcy proceedings, the lender spent nearly $5 million in legal, accounting, and consulting fees related to the fraud. After Lagos pleaded guilty to federal wire fraud charges, the District Court ordered him to pay restitution to the lender for those fees. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that such restitution was required by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, which requires defendants…
Excerpt of a 20,822-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.