Persyn Law & Policy has filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case of United States v. Ebrahim Shabudin on behalf of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU.
Shabudin was an executive at the United Commercial Bank, and for a period of months served as its Chief Credit Officer. After the bank collapsed, Shabudin was indicted and convicted of two conspiracies and five fraud offenses based on his failure to report anticipated losses within the proper time period. As part of his sentence, the district court assigned restitution of nearly $1 billion, reflecting the total losses to the United States in funds disbursed via FDIC and TARP. Shabudin is the first executive sentenced in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse.
The amicus brief argues that restitution should not only be subject to Eighth Amendment "excessive fines" analysis, but should be subject to its limits as well. Currently, Mandatory Victims Restitution Act jurisprudence finds that any amount of restitution--no matter how large--is constitutional because the MVRA does not impose any statutory limits. The brief argues that this rule impermissibly elevates a statute over the Constitution.
You can read the brief here.