Summary
The Eighth Circuit held that a district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing a defendant's proposed good-faith jury instruction in a wire fraud case because the instructions as a whole adequately covered the intent element, allowing the defendant to argue good faith. The court also affirmed a forfeiture order under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) for $91,586 in proceeds from the fraud, rejecting the argument that the government must prove the funds were used for the defendant's "personal benefit," as the money was obtained and deposited in his account. The case clarifies that Honeycutt v. United States does not apply to forfeitures under § 981(a)(1)(C) and that a good-faith instruction is not required when the jury is properly instructed on specific intent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred by denying Asomani's proposed good-faith jury instruction.
- Whether the district court erred by ordering forfeiture of $91,586 that the Government could not establish was used for Asomani's personal benefit.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion because the jury instructions as a whole adequately covered the intent element of wire fraud, and Asomani was able to argue good faith.
- The district court did not err because the forfeiture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), requires forfeiture of proceeds traceable to the offense, and Asomani obtained the money in his bank account; personal benefit is not required.
Key quotations
“The district court’s refusal of Asomani’s good-faith instruction did not deprive him of the good-faith defense because he was still able to argue that, because he acted in good faith, the Government did not prove the intent element of the offense.” (at 2-3)
“Based on the instructions given in this case and the resulting jury verdict, the jury necessarily found that [Asomani] did not act with honest intentions in his transactions.” (at 4)
“Whether Asomani went on to use this money for his 'personal benefit' is irrelevant, as this is not required by Honeycutt or by § 981(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(A).” (at 7)
Factual background
Asomani was indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to launder money, and money laundering. At trial, he proposed a good-faith instruction which was denied. The jury convicted him on all counts. The Government sought forfeiture of $381,339, including $91,586 that a Government witness could not confirm was used for Asomani's personal benefit. The district court ordered forfeiture of the full amount.
Procedural history
A federal grand jury indicted Henry N. Asomani on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to launder money, and two counts of money laundering. The indictment also sought forfeiture. At trial, Asomani proposed a good-faith jury instruction which was denied. The jury convicted Asomani of all six counts, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered forfeiture of $381,339. Asomani appeals.