Securities Regulation Daily Wrap Up, INVESTMENT ADVISERS—2d Cir.: Victims of fraud cannot accelerate pace of restitution payments, (Sep 28, 2026)

By Mark S. Nelson, J.D.

The case turned on an interpretation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and other laws in addition to the terms of the district court’s restitution order.

A Second Circuit panel has declined to alter the restitution payment schedule for Martin Silver the co-founder, managing partner, and chief operating officer of registered investment adviser International Investment Group, LLC., who was sentenced as part of a prosecution for a “Ponzi-like scheme” in which Silver and a co-conspirator engaged. The decision turned primarily on an interpretation of several laws and of the terms of the district court’s restitution order, which required a one-time lump sum payment pre-confinement to be followed by monthly payments upon Silver’s release from custody. Because the lower court did not abuse its discretion in forming the restitution order, the appellate panel denied the investors’ petition for a writ of mandamus to access the full value of Silver’s appreciated assets (In Re: IIG Structured Trade Finance Fund, LTD., No. 25-2577 (2d Cir. Sept. 21, 2026)).

Silver was prosecuted for the scheme and sentenced to 13 months in prison to be followed by supervised release. The district court, in dealing with the restitution issue, ordered Silver to pay $40,000 prior to beginning his prison term and then to pay 10 percent of his income on a monthly basis after his release. The court ordered a total amount of restation of $300 million.

Numerous victims of the scheme, including individuals, institutions, and sovereign wealth investors sought a petition for a writ of mandamus to accelerate the restitution payments upon learning that certain of Silver’s assets had significantly appreciated while he was confined. Essentially, the victims wanted to be paid their full restitution immediately from the appreciated assets.

The court had to interpret multiple laws, including the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which provides only general directions to courts about ordering restitution because the law had its origins in a broad-based proposed constitutional amendment. However, the CVRA’s meaning is amplified by other laws, including the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA).

Layered on top of the statutory construction, the appellate panel applied its “ordinary standard of review,” per the CVRA. Said the panel: “we review ‘issues solely of law de novo, findings of adjudicative fact for clear error, and the multi-factor balancing aspects of such an order for abuse of discretion.’”

Previously, the district court largely denied the government’s and the victims’ requests to change the pace of restitution from Silver, including deciding not to change the payment schedule. However, the lower court did order liquidation of Silver’s appreciated assets because, under applicable laws, the increase in value of the assets constituted a material change in Silver’s economic circumstances.

The appellate panel reasoned that the district court chose to phrase its restitution order using specific language that, in the context of the applicable laws which grant courts discretion about the “manner” of ordering restitution, the lower court pursued its lump-sum-plus-monthly-payments approach. As result, the appellate panel said the district court did not err when it denied a request for a turnover order regarding the full value of Silver’s assets.

The appellate panel summed up its decision to uphold the district court’s exercise of discretion thus: “based on the plain text of the MVRA, we conclude that where, as here, the judgment imposing restitution does not specify that payment is due immediately, includes a payment schedule setting a fixed monthly amount, and the defendant remains in compliance with that schedule, the government is not entitled to a turnover order to collect funds for restitution above and beyond the payment schedule.”

The case is No. 25-2577.

Judge: Bianco, J.

Attorneys: Stephen B. Selbst (Herrick, Feinstein LLP) for IIG Structured Trade Finance Fund, Ltd. and IIG Global Trade Finance Fund Ltd. Constance M. Boland (Thompson Hine LLP) for Girobank, N.V. and Girobank International, N.V. Paul A. Batista (Paul Batista, P.C.) for Martin Silver.

Companies: IIG Structured Trade Finance Fund, Ltd.; IIG Global Trade Finance Fund Ltd.; Girobank, N.V.; Girobank, International, N.V.

LitigationEnforcement: Enforcement FedTracker Securities FraudManipulation InvestmentAdvisers InvestorEducation ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews