Grand Bay Couple Gets Probation in Case Over Wounded Veteran’s Benefits; Restitution Amount Still in Dispute
A federal judge sentenced William and Deanne Vinson of Grand Bay to five years' probation after their conviction involving a disabled veteran's benefits. The VA restitution amount has not been determined.
MOBILE, Ala. — A Grand Bay couple convicted in a federal case involving benefits meant for a disabled veteran will not go to prison, a judge ruled Monday.
Chief U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Beaverstock sentenced William Jonas Vinson and Deanne Naman Vinson to five years’ probation. The couple faced up to 10 years in prison after their March conviction on charges of theft of government money and misappropriation by a fiduciary.
Beaverstock also ordered both defendants to pay restitution to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The amount has not been determined, and the defense has strongly objected to the $126,531 sought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
What prosecutors alleged
According to prosecutors, the VA appointed William Vinson as the fiduciary for his brother-in-law, who suffered injuries from an improvised explosive device while serving in Afghanistan. A VA fiduciary is responsible for managing benefits on behalf of a beneficiary who cannot do so alone.
Prosecutors alleged the Vinsons used more than $120,000 for their personal benefit.
The defense’s case
Dom Soto, the attorney who represented William Vinson, argued at trial that his client cared for his brother-in-law and had no intent to steal. He said the couple continued to provide financial support to the veteran even after the charges were filed, and that Vinson got into trouble because he failed to keep accurate records.
In a sentencing memorandum, Soto wrote that the case was not about “predation but one of a fiduciary’s strict liability obligation” to maintain proof of payments and gain prior authorization for paying personal expenses.
“This matter shows the efficacy of requiring that accounts not be commingled and the concomitant need for adequate training of fiduciaries and the requirement of periodic accountings,” he wrote.
Soto described a family trying to help a relative “physically and emotionally damaged by war and the collateral damage of drug dependency.”
“They undertook his care and lent emotional and financial support that predated any substantive VA benefits, championed his case before the VA bureaucracy, and provided, as the loss figure reflects, substantial, documented support,” he wrote.
What remains unresolved
The restitution figure is the main item left in the case. The court will determine the amount, with the government’s $126,531 request and the defense’s objection still in front of it.
