specific language and that specific limitation trumps any general or ambiguous pre provision that may be in twenty four sixty one fifty three and if we follow that l nothing left of the substitute property because there are a lot of specific statutes that talk about identifiable types of property but the statute uses the broad term property and we would give it wouldn't we it's ordinary meaning well it ordinarily means something that belongs to someone and i mean when it's going to it says that you know the firearms or  subject to forfeiture it doesn't say but you can't time substitute property it's sort of a starting point that allows forfeiture to begin with and then all the provisions relating to forfeiture it seems to me would come into play or put a point where your honor i have several responses to that first of all and the other forfeiture statutes that i've seen they use the term property and it's very broadly defined it includes proceeds so  there's not the difficulty in applying it be of twenty four sixty one the language in nine twenty four d is very specific but assuming that to twenty force twenty four sixty one has some application it must be strictly construed and it must be limited to the property that is subject to forfeiture under the underlying statute and it must belong to the defendant because that's what property means and any ambiguity in the scheme has to be resolved in my client's favor well there's no question here that the that the property belong to the friend this matter between her and the other defendant but no your hon r she did not it's undisputed that she had no ownership and interest she was merely an intermediary the government affirmatively asserted in its sentencing pleading that his c r seventy seven at four through five correct yes your honor and the whole idea was the criminal enterprise wanted this guns and ammunition and they wanted it moved across the border now in other situations intermediaries are not subjected to the harsh sanction of substitute asset forfeiture and if i may explain this this would raise serious constitutional concerns to allow the substitute asset forfeiture here because you can have two defendants that are equally culpable and one is socked with a harsh monetary penalty for substitute asset forfeiture and the other one is not because let's say the criminal enterprise in mexico recruits to intermediaries gives the same amount of money to both of them i ask them both to buy the same guns and ammunition one of those intermediaries gets caught at the border the guns and ammunition are forfeited that is not a problem for the defendant in that case because the defendant can pay for that new nation and then another that the other defendant the very equally culpable defendant does not get caught at the border and the guns go into mexico an what i don't see in the statute is i don't see authorization to confiscate substitute assets from someone who wasn't the source of the tainted property and in our case it was the criminal of the tainted you call it tainted or contra beyond property basic that the whole point of this is if you have placed the contraband outside the reach of the government to take it from you then the value of it gets taken from you or some other substitute property is taken from you because you're not allowed to profit from having possessed that contraband basic premise of it it's yours your honor that's my point my client now that wasn't her money she never had that money to begin with ok so i think we're going to what the issue is is it was it ever her property because if you're going to apply it fifty three p i think what you're saying you first have to meet the requirements of eight fifty three a yes or a to provide which is seems the one that might be a political here and it provides that any property constitut yes did she ever have an ownership interest in it and cases recognize that their intermediaries who just handle property and don't retain what your client pleaded guilty to attempted smuggling of the ammunition am i correct about and guns ok both of them had it in the car right before they left it in mexico came back and it was caught right ok so we're not talking about substitute property what real property right and it wouldn't have been a loss to her right  then would have been forfeiture against her or her codefendant or both of them it would have been forfeited and it would have been a fiction and this is an important point because roe thirty two point two in the case law makes it clear that criminal forfeiture can only apply to something that i just ended own or their interest in it and you know if a defendant doesn't have an interest in my client didn't have an interest in this case it doesn't matter they don't have an incentive to contest the forfeiture and how that is dealt with in the statutory scheme under eight fifty three n is that third parties who have a non criminal interest in it can come forward of course although again counsel you're your client was the one who was contacted by the enterprise your client was the one who got the money who supplied it to the coconspirator and who drove with the coconspirator to take the money toward the mexican border yes she said take the ammunition to the mexican border she possessed it but i think the very important point here your honor is that it is under spewed in actually it's the government's position as i said that this three thousand dollars came from mexico and to hold intermediaries in gun exportation cases liable in the circumstances would be which a treaty would be to treat them more harshly than intermediaries in drug cases intermediaries and money laundering cases intermediaries and record tearing cases where the language when congress actually thought about it and drafted a statute on criminal forfeiture they spared intermediaries of that hardship so there's no reason to assume that when they didn't even say anything about it in two and twenty four sixty one and when they didn't say anything in the legislative history except we want to streamline things and we want to enhance due process protections for defendants that they somehow want to treat intermediaries and other cases more harshly and i will say that in ninet two where they did in money laundering cases where they did contemplate that intermediaries would have to forfeit substitute assets in some circumstances they use the term provision they limited it to very egregious cases and they specifically said so so rules of strict statutory construction require the court to provide the same limitation here thank you your time is expired but you may have a minute for rebuttal on the time comes thank is liable for the value of the ammunition because in the words of a fifty three p she caused the ammunition to be transferred beyond the reach of the government basically that's why she's liable if you fall with the statutory scheme it's very clear nine twenty four he says any action involved in any federal offense is subject to forfeiture for a civil forfeiture but then you have this criminal forfeiture vehicle and so forth but how do you apply  the substitute property provision of eight fifty three p without first satisfying eight fifty three eighty two the any of the person's property is was it misreads as his property and did the district court make those factual findings that it was indeed her property you know the court did not make those what would fifty three and i apply at all it describes a certain drugs and other property that is subject to criminal  of ammunition it's similar but on a different topic and they use different different words to define what is subject to forfeiture and your argument is we need to look at age fifty three period right eight fifty three p fifty three eight does not apply the second certain bermuda's rejected that almost identical argument in a case involving i think with some money laundering for which you're statute and i asked the court to do the same here  if the court is going to apply it fifty three p the plain language of eight fifty three p requires the limitations of age fifty three a a fifty three p incorporates a by reference and not only that  eight fifty three p two which is a procedural provision says if the preconditions are met any other property of the defendant can be forfeited so that presumes that the property was the defendant to begin with that they had an ownership interest in it so the plain language strict construction of the statute requires that any ambiguity has to be resolved in favor of my client and also it's consistent with principles of criminal forfeiture which is limited to forfeiting the defendant's interest in property and again if property is not currently for for the ball in the first place then it can't be subject to substitute asset forfeiture and if you read the rule  advisory committee notes to rule thirty two point two you know the committee recognizes that that the the court really can't forfeit can't forfeit something that's not the defendants but again of the if actual property is forfeited and the defendant has no interest in it they're not going to contest it and eight fifty three provides procedures for for third parties who have legitimate claims to come forward thank you counsel for the case just argue some haven't and once again