SCOTUS Limits Criminal Forfeiture in 'Honeycutt' | New York Law Journal - Steven Kessler:
August 17, 2017 - "With the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), Congress sought to steer federal prosecutors to criminal forfeiture.... Congress believed that the risk of abuse would be reduced because a criminal conviction is required before a defendant's property can be forfeited in a criminal proceeding.
"Unfortunately, it turned out that greater reliance on criminal forfeiture increased abuses in that area as well. Examples include plea agreements where the criminal defendant purportedly consents to forfeit property that does not belong to him ... and so-called 'money judgment forfeitures,' a judge-made loophole that allows the government to forfeit property without ... the government trac[ing] the property sought to be forfeited to the defendant's criminal activity. Another form of criminal forfeiture abuse is the imposition of joint and several liability ... the government could simply 'pick a number' and then enforce it against every defendant alleged to have been involved in the criminal activity....
"The Roberts-led Supreme Court hinted at some dissatisfaction with the state of criminal forfeiture law in recent decisions, but the rifle shot came in its June 5, 2017 decision in Honeycutt v. United States. Unconcerned with the fact that virtually every circuit court that has addressed the issue had ruled otherwise, the Supreme Court unanimously and unequivocally rejected the application of joint and several liability in criminal forfeiture cases.
"The Honeycutt brothers were prosecuted under the federal drug laws for selling suspiciously large quantities of a legal product that they knew or should have known would likely have been used to manufacture methamphetamine.... Tony Honeycutt owned the store while Terry Honeycutt managed sales and inventory as an employee with no ownership interest in the business.
"The government sought a money judgment against each brother in the total of $269,751.98, which it asserted was the store's profits from the sale of the product.... Tony, the store owner, pled guilty and agreed to forfeit $200,000. Terry went to trial and was convicted on 11 of 14 counts.... Although it conceded that Terry ... did not benefit personally from the sales ...the government ... sought a money judgment of $69,751.98 against Terry....
"The [Supreme Court] found that the statute 'defines forfeitable property solely in terms of personal possession or use'.... Further, the court found, criminal forfeiture statutes consistently separate the treatment of tainted property from that of untainted property.... This provision, the court held, demonstrates that 'Congress did not authorize the Government to confiscate substitute property from other defendants or co-conspirators; it authorized the Government to confiscate assets only from the defendant who initially acquired the property and who bears responsibility for its dissipation'.... ....
"As Honeycutt makes clear, the standard is not whether Congress has forbidden a remedy, but whether it has specifically authorized it. That is a test — now the law of the land — that applies to any forfeiture sanctions or remedies, civil or criminal. Forfeiture is purely statutory, without any basis in civil law or equity."
Read more: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/home/id=1202795826407/SCOTUS-Limits-Criminal-Forfeiture-in-Honeycutt?mcode=1202615326010&curindex=2
'via Blog this'
August 17, 2017 - "With the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), Congress sought to steer federal prosecutors to criminal forfeiture.... Congress believed that the risk of abuse would be reduced because a criminal conviction is required before a defendant's property can be forfeited in a criminal proceeding.
"Unfortunately, it turned out that greater reliance on criminal forfeiture increased abuses in that area as well. Examples include plea agreements where the criminal defendant purportedly consents to forfeit property that does not belong to him ... and so-called 'money judgment forfeitures,' a judge-made loophole that allows the government to forfeit property without ... the government trac[ing] the property sought to be forfeited to the defendant's criminal activity. Another form of criminal forfeiture abuse is the imposition of joint and several liability ... the government could simply 'pick a number' and then enforce it against every defendant alleged to have been involved in the criminal activity....
"The Roberts-led Supreme Court hinted at some dissatisfaction with the state of criminal forfeiture law in recent decisions, but the rifle shot came in its June 5, 2017 decision in Honeycutt v. United States. Unconcerned with the fact that virtually every circuit court that has addressed the issue had ruled otherwise, the Supreme Court unanimously and unequivocally rejected the application of joint and several liability in criminal forfeiture cases.
"The Honeycutt brothers were prosecuted under the federal drug laws for selling suspiciously large quantities of a legal product that they knew or should have known would likely have been used to manufacture methamphetamine.... Tony Honeycutt owned the store while Terry Honeycutt managed sales and inventory as an employee with no ownership interest in the business.
"The government sought a money judgment against each brother in the total of $269,751.98, which it asserted was the store's profits from the sale of the product.... Tony, the store owner, pled guilty and agreed to forfeit $200,000. Terry went to trial and was convicted on 11 of 14 counts.... Although it conceded that Terry ... did not benefit personally from the sales ...the government ... sought a money judgment of $69,751.98 against Terry....
"The [Supreme Court] found that the statute 'defines forfeitable property solely in terms of personal possession or use'.... Further, the court found, criminal forfeiture statutes consistently separate the treatment of tainted property from that of untainted property.... This provision, the court held, demonstrates that 'Congress did not authorize the Government to confiscate substitute property from other defendants or co-conspirators; it authorized the Government to confiscate assets only from the defendant who initially acquired the property and who bears responsibility for its dissipation'.... ....
"As Honeycutt makes clear, the standard is not whether Congress has forbidden a remedy, but whether it has specifically authorized it. That is a test — now the law of the land — that applies to any forfeiture sanctions or remedies, civil or criminal. Forfeiture is purely statutory, without any basis in civil law or equity."
Read more: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/home/id=1202795826407/SCOTUS-Limits-Criminal-Forfeiture-in-Honeycutt?mcode=1202615326010&curindex=2
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment