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.
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
