Potential sentences could include fines and restitution…
Although there has been a good deal of speculation about what type of punishment might be meted out to Keith Raniere and his co-defendants should they be found guilty or accept plea deals, most of it has focused on how long they might be incarcerated: 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 20 years, life?
But in addition to being incarcerated for a period of time, it’s quite possible that these same individuals could end up being ordered to pay fines and/or paying restitution to their victims. They could even be ordered to reimburse the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the cost of their prosecution.
Fines
Per the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Voluntary Guidelines, for example, anyone who is convicted of money laundering can be ordered to pay twice the value of the money laundered (up to $500,000).
Other crimes that can result in fines include identity theft, extortion, forced labor, obstruction of justice, sex trafficking, and wire fraud. If these sound familiar, it’s because they’re some of the crimes that have already been alleged against Raniere and his co-defendants (The expectation is that they’ll be a lot more alleged crimes – and several more named defendants – in the next superseding indictment).
Restitution
When it comes to restitution, the judge will either be mandated – or permitted – to order it. Whether it’s mandatory or permissive depends on the particular crime.
18 U.S.C. § 3663 allows the judge to order restitution for certain crimes. More specifically, here’s what that statute allows in part:
(a)(1) The court, when sentencing a defendant, … may order … the defendant make restitution to any victim…
(2) … a victim …. means any person directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct…
(3) The court may also order restitution … agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement [and among other things]. … pay … necessary medical… psychiatric, and psychological care… [and]… reimburse the victim for income lost…
18 U.S.C. § 3663A, on the other hand, requires the judge to order restitution for the following types of crimes:
This section shall apply in all sentencing proceedings for convictions of, or plea agreements relating to charges for, any offense–
(A) that is–
(i) a crime of violence, as defined in section 16 [18 USCS § 16];
(ii) an offense against property under this title, or under section 416(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856(a)), including any offense committed by fraud or deceit; or
(iii) an offense described in section 1365 [18 USCS § 1365] (relating to tampering with consumer products); and
(B) in which an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss.
***
What does all this mean for the NXIVM defendants? Well, given that Raniere claims he has no assets or income, probably not very much for him. And given their limited assets and income, that’s probably also true for Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, and, of course, the hapless Kathy Russell. And even though Allison Mack has some residual income from her former acting career, her future earning power is probably not going to generate a lot of income for her or her victims.
So, who does that leave? Clare Bronfman, who claims in her bail package to have a net worth of $200 million (Many believe that a forensic accounting would find another $200 million stashed away in offshore accounts).
Clarebear may take a plea deal – since that would allow her to negotiate her ultimate fines and restitution.
Funny, before she met her Vanguard, she was a competitive horse jumper. Her friends were the horses and the people in that sport. As far as is known, they never tried to talk her into committing crimes.
If she’s convicted at trial – and the judge takes into account all of her victims – the only horse she’ll be able to afford to ride in the future might be that one on the carousel down at the arcade.
Given the nature of the crimes – particularly the money laundering – it's likely any NXIVM defendants who received a judgement would pay restitution. Fines and restitution are usually a multiplier of the damages, they are there to cancel out any benefit the defendant may have enjoyed as a result of the crime. Combined, they can add up to more than double the amount originally alleged, especially if a judge believes the defendants are being dishonest. You often hear about appeals where the defendant is not contesting guilt but instead the fines.
Unless the individual judgements are for millions, the bigger problem for the defendants would be fees related to incarceration. Especially if they are looking at a long stretch.
While Federal Prison is not a pay-to-stay system per se, inmates are responsible for a copay on medical costs that covers doctor's visits, medical supplies and other items. In addition, should any of them be housed at a private prison, those institutions have wide latitude to impose additional fees. These fees can include a per-night fee and service fees related to providing for the inmate's welfare.
The worst story I heard was about an inmate (who was young and in decent health) accumulating $90k in debt over a 32 month stay. He spent a most of his time in isolation units, which made every service – meal delivery, delivering him to exercise areas, etc – subject to a fee. The debt he accumulated was not dischargeable and could have been avoided. The problem was he was never honest about his assets going into prison, so the prison did not offer him a copay and was able to charge him 100% of the costs of services.
While I realize penalties and restitution for the money laundering could be high, I suspect the cost of incarceration could eclipse that amount. The defendants are aging adults who, should they receive a jail sentence, will need medical services over time. We've already heard reports about heart problems and those could require major procedures. The cost to treat conditions like those in prison compared to private treatment is much higher, more than it would to visit an emergency room.
(Contrary to popular opinion, you don't get to bring in your own doctor while you are in prison. You get to bring your own doctor in as a consultant for the services of the provider selected by the prison. That plus the inconvenience / stigma of treating felons makes it very rare for someone to ever see their personal doctor.)
But what will make this a lot more expensive is the defendants themselves. Their financial needs assessment will be made by a bureaucrat based on information they have received from the BOP and details about their judgement. If that person believes a convict is trying to conceal their true finances, that convict will not be offered a co-pay for services.
Beyond that, it's a huge red flag when an inmate doesn't come clean, every prison has rules and that's a big one to break. Staff will know this is the case, that inmate will be treated with nothing but distrust the entire time they are there.