Defendant Must Pay $46 Million Restitution in Installments
Post 4863
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/ggUkdWJ9, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gE64qEpV and at https://lnkd.in/gTAzhu8q, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
On November 1,2023, Defendant Roman Israilov pled guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with a long-running no-fault insurance fraud scheme. On May 23, 2024, the USDC sentenced Israilov to seven years’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
In United States Of America v. Roman Israilov, No. 22 Cr. 20 (PGG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (August 20, 2024) the USDC added restitution to the sentence to reimburse the insurers for their loss.
FACTS
On November 1,2023, Defendant Roman Israilov pled guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with a long-running no-fault insurance fraud scheme. On May 23, 2024, the USDC sentenced Israilov to seven years’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release but deferred its determination as to restitution.
FACTS
The Government sought an order requiring Israilov to make restitution to thirteen insurance companies in the aggregate amount of $46,651,801.04. The purpose of the proposed restitution order was to reimburse the insurers for payments they made to medical clinics that were controlled by non-physicians, including Israilov. Israilov opposed the Government’s application.
BACKGROUND
Israilov was charged in a large multi-defendant case premised on a $40 million no-fault insurance fraud scheme. The Indictment alleged that from approximately 2014 to 2021, Israilov and his co-defendants procured the identity of car accident victims through bribery, steered the accident victims to corrupt no-fault medical clinics willing to pay kickbacks for the referrals, and billed insurance companies for unnecessary medical procedures and medications. The corrupt medical clinics also falsely represented to the insurers that they were owned and controlled by physicians, when in fact they were not.
ISRAILOV’S GUILTY PLEA AND SENTENCING
On November 1, 2023, Israilov pled guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and to aggravated identity theft.
From at least in or about 2014 up to and including in or about 2021, the defendant agreed with others to unlawfully own and run clinics and pharmacies located in the New York area. The defendant knew that clinics are unable to bill insurance companies for No-Fault benefits if the medical facilities are controlled by nonphysicians.
DISCUSSION
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (the “MVRA”) provides that when sentencing a defendant for an offense “in which an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a … pecuniary loss,” the court “shall order, in addition to … any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), 3663A(c)(1)(B).
The primary and overarching goal of the MVRA is to make victims of crime whole.
THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED RESTITUTION
The Government seeks a restitution order amounting to $46,651,801.04. The Government argues that under New York’s no-fault insurance law, medical clinics under the control of non-physicians such as Israilov are not entitled to reimbursement from insurers for any medical claims, including for treatments and care that were medically necessary.
Insurers have submitted affidavits or declarations stating that they made payments to medical clinics controlled by Israilov and his co-conspirators, in the listed amounts.
Absent Israilov’s fraudulent representations that his clinics were controlled and operated by physicians, the insurers would have provided no reimbursement for the medical care they rendered. There is thus no amount that the insurer would have paid had the defendant not committed the fraud. The loss to the insurance was enormous, $40 million, and the proceeds of the fraud that the defendant received, $5 million, were substantial.
Israilov requests that any order of restitution require monthly payments of less than twenty percent of his gross monthly income. In determining a payment schedule, ths Court must consider “the financial resources and other assets of the defendant[,]” “defendant [earnings and other income of the defendant[,]” and “any financial obligations of the defendant[,] including obligations to dependents.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).
Israilov states that he will “likely return to work as a barber after imprisonment,” and will “need to support his wife and three children.” Given these circumstances, Israilov contends that installment payments amounting to twenty percent of his monthly gross income would be excessive.
In light of Israilov’s likely future employment and his family obligations, this Court’s restitution order will provide for monthly installment payments amounting to fifteen percent of his gross monthly income. For the reasons stated above, this Court will enter an order of restitution in the aggregate amount of $46,651,801.04.
ZALMA OPINION
The restitution order is a victory for Israilov since, at 15% of his earnings as a barber the restitution amount will be paid off in about 10,000 years after he is released from prison unless he goes back to his fraudulent ways and makes enough from the fraud to pay off the restitution. He will serve the full seven years where he will make no money. Israilov is a serious criminal who profited from the crime and has apparently spent the $5 million he took from the crime.
THE ART OF ADJUSTING
I will be appearing on the “Art of Adjusting” podcast The link below is a preview of the podcast that will be posted in full next week. https://dropbox.com/scl/fi/ldkfrvc
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
