Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

United States of America v. Hakan Yalincak, Ayper Yalincak

Date: 03-29-2022

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:

About This Case

What was the outcome of United States of America v. Hakan Yalincak, Ayper Yalincak?

The outcome was: 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.

Which court heard United States of America v. Hakan Yalincak, Ayper Yalincak?

This case was heard in United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on appeal from the District of Connecticut (New Haven County), CT. The presiding judge was Gerard E. Lynch.

Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Hakan Yalincak, Ayper Yalincak?

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.

When was United States of America v. Hakan Yalincak, Ayper Yalincak decided?

This case was decided on March 29, 2022.