USA v. Haydel

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VERSUS
PATRICK S. HAYDEL
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CRIMINAL No. 22-223
SECTION: “A”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Patrick Haydel’s Motion for Forfeiture and
Restitution Credit for Prior Payments to IRS and Other Payments (Rec. Doc.
145). The United States of America (“the Government”) opposes the motion (Rec.
Doc. 154). This Motion is considered on the briefs without oral argument. The Court
DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion for the reasons
set forth below.
Background
On January 10, 2025, Patrick Haydel, owner and President of HealthPro, pled
guilty to one count of health care fraud.1 Three other individuals and companies were
listed as co-conspirators in Mr. Haydel’s Bill of Information.2 One co-conspirator has
a case pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana,3 and the other two have pled
guilty to health care fraud in federal court.4
1 Rec. Doc. 20, Plea Agreement.
2 Rec. Doc. 1, Bill of Information.
3 United States v. Lake, No. 24-234 (E.D. La. Oct. 18, 2024).
4 Rec. Doc. 145-1, Mem. in Support of Patrick Haydel’s Mot. for Forfeiture and Restitution Credits, at
4.
Case 2:22-cr-00223-JCZ-KWR Document 183 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 8

2
Pursuant to the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act (MVRA), Mr. Haydel
agreed to pay restitution to Medicare in the amount of $13,835.417.36.5 He also
agreed to a general forfeiture. On October 22, 2024, the Court imposed a Forfeiture
Money Judgment of $2.8 million.6 (Rec. Doc. 89). Mr. Haydel previously delivered a
cashier’s check for $571,074 to the U.S. Marshals Service, bringing the amount
subject to forfeiture to $2,228,926.00.7
On February 21, 2025, the Government filed a motion seeking to include the
following substitute assets in the Forfeiture Money Judgment:
1. $440,184.00 (Check payable to U.S. Government from the sale of
Haydel’s condo in Watercolors, Florida)
2. $45,100.00 (Payment to Bonding Company for Return of DME)
3. $188,926.00 (Amount of Return of DME)
▪ Total: $674,210.008
Mr. Haydel and the Government agree that $674,210.00 has been applied to the
Preliminary Order amount of $2,228,926.00.9 So, the remaining amount subject to
forfeiture is $1,554,716.00.10
On top of the assets already seized for forfeiture, Mr. Haydel has also been
paying $2,000 a month towards his $13,835,417.36 restitution balance. The
Government calculates that with these monthly payments, his balance has been
5 Id. at 2 & 4.
6 Rec. Doc. 89, Preliminary Order of Forfeiture Money Judg. and Order for Substitute Assets.
7 Id.
8 Rec. Doc. 111, Mot. for Amend. Forfeiture Money Judg. and Stipulation to Forfeiture and Restitution,
at 1.
9 Rec. Doc. 145 at 2; Rec. Doc. 154, U.S.’ Opp. to Mot. for Forfeiture and Restitution Credits, at 2
10 Despite acknowledging that the $674,210 has been applied to the forfeiture judgment, the
Government says that approximately $2.2 million remains. Rec. Doc. 154 at 2. This appears to be a
mistake and does not account for the $571,074.00 paid to the U.S. Marshal Service prior to the Court’s
Preliminary Order of Forfeiture Money.
Case 2:22-cr-00223-JCZ-KWR Document 183 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 8

3
brought down to $13,821,317.36. Mr. Haydel does not contest this calculation or the
fact that he still owes approximately $13 million in restitution to Medicare.
Discussion
Mr. Haydel filed this motion seeking (1) credit towards his $13 million
restitution balance for the amount already seized to satisfy his forfeiture judgment;
(2) credit toward both restitution AND forfeiture for the payment of income taxes and
Capital Gains taxes; and (3) credit for the liability of the co-conspirators that were
listed in the factual basis.11
The Government opposes this motion arguing that (1) restitution and forfeiture
are distinct remedies; (2) the IRS is a separate entity from Medicare. No law
authorizes the Court to credit taxes towards forfeiture or restitution because the IRS
is not an identifiable victim in this case; and (3) joint and several liability is
inapplicable here because Mr. Haydel is the only person responsible for the loss to
Medicare.
a) Credit For Forfeited Funds Towards Restitution Balance
There is nothing in the record to support Mr. Haydel’s assertion that “the $13
million in Restitution includes the $2.8 million in Forfeitures Order by the Court”
and “therefore credit should be applied to both Orders.”12 The Fifth Circuit, and the
majority of other Circuit Courts of Appeal, have held that forfeiture and restitution
are separate and distinct parts of a defendant’s sentence, that they are both
mandatory, and that they each serve a different purpose. United States v. Taylor, 582
11 Rec. Doc. 145.
12 Rec. Doc. 145-1 at 1-2.
Case 2:22-cr-00223-JCZ-KWR Document 183 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 8

4
F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). Restitution intends to compensate a
victim for its loss. While forfeiture is punitive; it seeks to disgorge the offender from
his ill-gotten gains. Id. at 565 (citing United States v. Webber, 536 F.3d 584, 602–03
(7th Cir.2008)).
When the amount forfeited to the government is equal to or greater than the
amount of restitution ordered, a defendant can satisfy both his forfeiture order and
restitution order by paying only the forfeiture order, if the Department of Justice
decides to use forfeited money to pay the victim.13 The Court cannot compel the
Government to pay forfeited money to a victim in lieu of restitution. See United States
v. Sanjar, 876 F.3d 725, 751 (5th Cir. 2017). Only the Attorney General or his
designee may authorize the credit of forfeited funds towards the Restitution Order.
Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. § 853(i)(1)). Under the authority of the Attorney General, the
Chief of the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (“MLARS”) of the
Department of Justice may allow the forfeited funds to be applied to the outstanding
Restitution Order. See Taylor 582 F.3d at 586. The Fifth Circuit has said in dicta that
it has “difficulty seeing why amounts the Department of Justice collects through
forfeiture should not be transferred to the victim agency.” Sanjar, 876 F.3d at 751.
However, Congress is clear that neither the Court, nor the Assistant United States
Attorney, has the authority to order or agree that forfeited assets be used to satisfy
Mr. Haydel’s restitution obligation.14 Id.
13 Scott Gilbert, The Double Whammy: Paying a Forfeiture Judgment and a Restitution Judgment in
a Single Criminal Case, ABA CJS White Collar Crime Committee Newsletter (2018).
14 On October 27, 2025, the Court contacted the Eastern District of Louisiana’s Financial Specialist
who notified the Court that the restoration request was still under review by MLARS.
Case 2:22-cr-00223-JCZ-KWR Document 183 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 8

5
b) Credit For IRS Payment Towards Both Forfeiture and Restitution Balance
Mr. Haydel also seeks credit toward both the forfeiture and restitution amount
from the federal income taxes he paid on proceeds from the fraudulent “kickbacks”
he provided, and Capital Gains taxes he paid to the IRS through the sale of his Florida
Condo.15 As the Government noted in its opposition, there is no legal authority that
would allow the Court to deduct the federal income taxes Mr. Haydel paid from either
his forfeiture or restitution.16 The MVRA requires that restitution be ordered to an
identifiable victim directly and proximately harmed as a result of the defendant’s
conduct. See United States v. Kasali, 111 F.4th 637, 649 (5th Cir. 2024) (citing 18
U.S.C. § 3663A, et seq.) There is no dispute that Medicare is the victim to whom Mr.
Haydel owes restitution, not the IRS. A credit for taxes paid to the IRS would mean
that Medicare is not wholly compensated for its losses—an outcome incompatible
with the purpose of the MVRA.
For similar reasons, the Court rejects Mr. Haydel’s request to credit his
Forfeiture Judgment for his IRS payments because it would subvert the punitive
purpose of forfeiture. Although the Court could not find case law directly on point,
the Fifth Circuit has addressed a similar issue in Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d
417, 421 (5th Cir. 1989). The circuit court held that a criminal who forfeited his assets
acquired with drug money and paid income tax on the forfeited assets was not allowed
a tax deduction on those proceeds. Id. at 421. The court reasoned that “allowing a loss
15 Rec. Doc. 145-1 at 2-3.
16 Rec. Doc. 154 at 4.
Case 2:22-cr-00223-JCZ-KWR Document 183 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 8

6
deduction would certainly ‘take the sting’ out of a penalty intended to deter drug
dealing.” Id. at 422. The same logic applies here.
c) Credit For Forfeiture and Restitution Payments by Conspirators
Finally, Mr. Haydel requests that the Government provide to the Court an
accounting of all payments towards restitution and forfeiture orders by other
conspirators listed in Mr. Haydel’s Bill of Information, so that he may receive credit
for any payments made by them.17 The Fifth Circuit has held that generally, co-
conspirators subject to criminal forfeiture are held jointly and severally liable for the
full amount of the proceeds of the conspiracy. United States v. Nagin, 810 F.3d 348,
353 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 643 (5th Cir.
2002)). A co-conspirator, however, may not be held jointly and severally liable for the
judgment if he received none of the illicit property. See Honeycutt v. United States,
581 U.S. 443, 447–50 (2017). Mr. Haydel admitted that he “personally profited in the
amount of $2.8 million” from his participation in the scheme.18 So, joint and several
or co-conspirator liability does not apply to the Forfeiture Money Judgment, and Mr.
Haydel remains solely responsible for the $2.8 million in proceeds he actually
acquired. See Sanjar, 876 F.3d at 749.
The MVRA also affords district courts the discretion to apportion restitution
among co-conspirators who contribute to a victim's loss:
If the court finds that more than 1 defendant has
contributed to the loss of a victim, the court may make each
defendant liable for payment of the full amount of
restitution or may apportion liability among the
17 Rec. Doc. 145-1 at 4.
18 Rec. Doc. 21, Factual Basis, at 6.
Case 2:22-cr-00223-JCZ-KWR Document 183 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 8

7
defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim's
loss and economic circumstances of each defendant.
18 U.S.C. § 3664(h). Further, under the statute, “members of a conspiracy may be
‘held jointly and severally liable for all foreseeable losses within the scope of their
conspiracy regardless of whether a specific loss is attributable to a particular
conspirator.’” United States v. King, 93 F.4th 845, 854 (5th Cir.2024), cert. denied sub
nom. Diggs v. United States, 145 S.Ct. 213 (2024) (quoting United States v. Ochoa, 58
F.4th 556, 561 (1st Cir. 2023)). However, courts may not award restitution that would
result in the victim receiving more than their actual loss. United States v. Sheets, 814
F.3d 256, 260–61 (5th Cir. 2016). This means that although the Court may make each
defendant liable for the full amount taken19, “each defendant's liability ends when
the victim is made whole.” Id. (quoting United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 30, 52–53 (1st
Cir. 2001).
The Fifth Circuit is clear that “the government may not collect more from all
defendants together than will make the victim whole.” Id. at 261 This is true even in
situations where the co-conspirators are found guilty in separate proceedings. See
Sheets 814 F.3d at 258. So, the Government must disclose an accounting of all
payments towards restitution made by other conspirators to ensure that the
19 The Fifth Circuit held “even where liability of each defendant overlaps and the total amount that
they are held liable for exceeds the victim's total injury, the MVRA permits the [g]overnment to hold
any individual defendant liable for as much as the court ordered as to that defendant, but the
government may not collect more from all defendants together than will make the victim whole.”
Sheets, 814 F.3d at 261.
Case 2:22-cr-00223-JCZ-KWR Document 183 Filed 12/15/25 Page 7 of 8

8
restitution award paid by Mr. Haydel does not exceed Medicare's actual loss and thus
does not exceed the maximum statutory amount. See Id. at 261-262.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Forfeiture and Restitution Credit
for Prior Payments to IRS and Other Payments (Rec. Doc. 145) filed by
Defendant Patrick Haydel is DENIED IN PART as to the request to credit forfeited
funds toward the restitution balance and to credit IRS payments to both the forfeiture
and restitution balances. The Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Defendant’s
request that the Government provide an accounting of all payments towards
restitution orders made by other conspirators listed in Mr. Haydel’s Bill of
Information.
December 12, 2025
_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:22-cr-00223-JCZ-KWR Document 183 Filed 12/15/25 Page 8 of 8