Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 15, 2021

Digilytic International FZE v. Alchemy Finance, Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-04650
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureCriminal
In one sentence

In Digilytic International FZE v. Alchemy Finance, Judge Wang directed plaintiffs to address possible restitution in a related criminal case.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, who must address possible restitution related to the criminal case against Defendant Shen-Wen Cheng, and Defendant Shen-Wen Cheng in that related criminal proceeding.

What happened

In Digilytic International FZE v. Alchemy Finance, Inc., the court reviewed the plaintiffs’ July 9, 2021 status letter and directed them to discuss restitution in their next status letter.

The court specifically asked whether, and to what extent, the plaintiffs could recover restitution in the Southern District of New York criminal case against Defendant Shen-Wen Cheng. The order cited the federal restitution statute and related decisions but did not decide whether restitution could be recovered.

Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order on July 15, 2021. The order was a procedural direction concerning the case’s status and did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Digilytic International FZE v. Alchemy Finance, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04650
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
July 15, 2021

What the court did

The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ status letter dated July 9, 2021. It directed the plaintiffs to address in their next status letter whether, and to what extent, they might recover restitution in the Southern District of New York criminal case against Defendant Shen-Wen Cheng, identified as United States v. Cheng, No. 21-cr-00261-AJN.

Legal context

The order cited 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a), a federal restitution statute, and cited decisions discussing the scope of restitution for criminal conduct. The cited legal principle states that restitution can cover losses caused during a defendant’s criminal conduct, not only losses attributable to the specific offense of conviction.

Effect of the order

The court did not rule on whether the plaintiffs were entitled to restitution or determine the amount of any possible recovery. It only required the plaintiffs to address those issues in a future status letter. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.