U.S. v. Lee

In prosecution on fraud, money laundering and perjury charges, Dist. Ct. erred in granting govt.'s request for turnover order targeting payments plaintiff had received from three pensions to satisfy $1.587 million restitution order. Ct. agreed with defendant that Consumer Credit Protection Act limited any garnishment of defendant's periodic pension fund payments to 25 percent of such payments. Fact that said funds did not represent actual wages was irrelevant.