## Facts

- Edward H. Okun was indicted on federal charges including mail fraud, wire fraud, and related offenses tied to a scheme involving § 1031 like-kind exchanges.
- Okun’s alleged victims were “exchangers” who deposited sale proceeds with qualified intermediary entities to defer capital-gains tax under 26 U.S.C. § 1031 by reinvesting in like-kind property.
- The government alleged that exchangers’ funds were wrongfully taken or used, causing direct financial losses; the exchangers also appeared as unsecured creditors in related bankruptcy proceedings.
- The government identified 577 alleged victims and planned to call eight of them as trial witnesses.
- Before trial, the government moved in limine under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, asking the court to allow the planned victim-witnesses to attend the entire trial even though they would later testify.
- Okun objected, arguing (i) victim status could not be determined before the government proved the charged conduct, and (ii) allowing victim-witnesses to observe trial testimony conflicted with witness sequestration and created practical difficulties given the number of alleged victims.

## Issues

1. Whether the exchangers qualified as “crime victims” under the CVRA at the pretrial stage, even though Okun had not yet been convicted.
2. Whether the CVRA’s right of crime victims not to be excluded from public court proceedings permits victim-witnesses to attend trial despite ordinary witness-sequestration practice.
3. Whether Okun showed a sufficient basis to exclude the victim-witnesses based on the risk that hearing other testimony would materially affect their own testimony.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion in limine and allowed the identified victim-witnesses to attend the trial.
- The court concluded that the exchangers fell within the CVRA’s definition of “crime victim” because they were alleged to have been directly and proximately harmed by the charged offenses.
- The court rejected the argument that victim status must await a guilty verdict, reasoning that the CVRA applies during criminal proceedings, including pretrial matters.
- The court held that the CVRA creates a statutory right for crime victims not to be excluded from public proceedings, limiting reliance on sequestration to bar victim-witness attendance.
- The court recognized the need to protect the defendant’s fair-trial interests and indicated it could use case-management tools and tailored safeguards if a concrete risk of unfairness emerged.

## Legal Principles

- The CVRA defines a “crime victim” as a person “directly and proximately harmed” by the commission of a federal offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e).
- Crime victims have a statutory right not to be excluded from public court proceedings in the case. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(3).
- The CVRA applies during the life of a criminal case and is not limited to post-verdict stages.
- A court may restrict victim-witness attendance only upon an adequate, case-specific showing that attendance would compromise the fairness of the proceedings; generalized claims tied to sequestration concerns are not enough.
- Courts retain authority to manage trials to protect both victims’ statutory rights and the defendant’s right to a fair trial, including by sequencing testimony or imposing other focused controls when warranted.

## Conclusion

United States v. Okun (2009 WL 790042) held that alleged § 1031 exchangers were “crime victims” under the CVRA before trial and that designated victim-witnesses could attend the full trial notwithstanding ordinary sequestration concerns, subject to the court’s continuing power to impose focused safeguards if needed to protect fair-trial rights.


United States v. Okun, 2009 WL 790042 (2009)