Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that, in a criminal forfeiture proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), a defendant may be required to forfeit only property tainted by the offense and actually acquired by that defendant. Applying Honeycutt v. United States, the court concludes that Matthew Elias never acquired proceeds from the robbery and therefore vacates the $10,000 forfeiture order. The court otherwise affirms in part and vacates in part in accordance with a separate summary order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant must personally acquire proceeds before property may be forfeited under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) in a criminal proceeding.
- Whether the district court erred by ordering Elias to forfeit $10,000 when the evidence showed that he never acquired any proceeds from the robbery.
Holdings
- In a criminal forfeiture proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), a defendant may be ordered to forfeit only tainted property acquired or used by that defendant as a result of the offense of conviction. The defendant cannot be held liable for proceeds obtained by a coconspirator or for substitute assets when the defendant never acquired the forfeitable proceeds.
- The district court erred by ordering Elias to forfeit $10,000 because he obtained no proceeds from the robbery, and the forfeited amount was based on property obtained and retained by another perpetrator.
Key quotations
“The key lesson from Honeycutt is that a defendant cannot be ordered to forfeit property that the defendant never acquired, where the applicable forfeiture statute describes forfeitable property using words implying personal possession like “obtain.”” (at 35)
“The only property that a district court can order a defendant to forfeit in a criminal case under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) is “tainted property acquired or used by the defendant” as a result of the crime of conviction.” (at 35)
“We will not saddle Elias with the burden of forfeiting property that a different perpetrator obtained and kept.” (at 37)
Factual background
Elias drove one of two getaway cars used in a 2017 stash-house robbery in Queens, New York, during which the perpetrators took a gun, approximately $20,000 in cash, and marijuana. Elias was arrested before reaching the planning location and never received any share of the stolen property. The other participants retained or distributed the proceeds, while the district court nevertheless ordered Elias to forfeit $10,000 as a pro rata share.
Procedural history
Elias was tried in the Eastern District of New York and convicted by a jury of Hobbs Act robbery. The district court imposed a sentence that included a $10,000 forfeiture money judgment, calculated as a pro rata share of the robbery proceeds. Elias appealed. The Second Circuit held that the district court could not order forfeiture of proceeds Elias never acquired and vacated the forfeiture order; other issues concerning Elias's conviction and sentence were resolved in a simultaneously issued summary order.
Remand instructions
The forfeiture order entered against Elias was vacated. The case was remanded as specified in the simultaneously issued summary order, which directed the district court to strike or revise specified conditions of supervised release. This opinion itself did not direct recalculation of the forfeiture amount.