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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
