Dist. Ct. did not err in granting govt.’s motion for issuance of turnover order concerning $327,000 in defendant’s retirement funds to partially satisfy $940,000 restitution order, even though defendant argued that his retirement funds qualified as “earnings” that were subject to 25 percent garnishment cap under Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA). Garnishment cap only protects periodic distributions pursuant to retirement program, and record showed that 48-year-old defendant had right to withdraw entirety of his accounts at will, minus sums needed to pay taxes associated with any early withdrawal. As such, govt. could immediately withdraw entirety of funds because restitution order is treated under 18 USC section 3613(a) as if it were tax lien that would allow govt. to exercise any right to said funds that defendant possessed. Moreover, CCPA did not apply since it is silent as to treatment given to lump-sum distributions of retirement funds, which would not otherwise qualify as “earnings” under CCPA.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Restitution