Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 03-29-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: 20-1540-cr; 20-1542-cr; 20-2144-cr
Judge: Gerard E. Lynch
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on appeal from the District of Connecticut (New Haven County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: HEATHER L. CHERRY (Marc H. Silverman, on the brief), Assistant
United States Attorneys, for Leonard C. Boyle, Acting
United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
Defendant's Attorney: Jeremiah Donovan for Ayfer Yalincak
Jeffrey C. Kestenband for Hakan Yalincak
Description: New Haven, Connecticut criminal defense lawyer represented Defendants charged with fraud.
Appellants Ayfer and Hakan Yalincak (“Ayfer” and “Hakan,” respectively,
and collectively, the “Yalincaks”) appeal from an April 24, 2020 order of the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet Bond Arterton,
J.) denying their motions to declare Ayfer Yalincak’s restitution obligation under
the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A fully
satisfied.
Following guilty pleas from both defendants relating to a fraud scheme
spearheaded by Hakan, the district court’s judgments made the Yalincaks liable
for restitution payments to certain victims, and specifically made Ayfer and
Hakan jointly and severally liable to the victim referred to as W.A-M. for
$500,000 and Hakan individually liable to W.A-M. for an additional $250,000, for
a total of $750,000. After payments and distributions from certain bankruptcy
proceedings resulted in credits to W.A-M. exceeding $500,000, the Yalincaks
moved the district court to declare that Ayfer’s restitution obligation was fully
satisfied, even though W.A-M. was still owed an additional $139,057.43 and
Ayfer herself had made only minimal restitution payments falling far short of the
amount for which she was liable jointly and severally with Hakan. The district
court denied the motions, holding that under the “hybrid” understanding of the
restitution orders, Ayfer’s restitution obligation to W.A-M. would not be satisfied
until either W.A-M. was made whole or Ayfer paid to W.A-M. the amount for
which she had been held liable.
Outcome: Therefore, in appeal No. 20-2144-cr, we AFFIRM the April 24, 2020 order
of the district court. Appeals Nos. 20-1540-cr and 20-1542-cr are DISMISSED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: