Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): proceeds recovered if an “alternate action” is pursued. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 7 — 804(f)(2). III. Discussion There is no dispute that, the State and the City did not intervene in Khura-na’s original action or otherwise convert it to a civil enforcement action. Nevertheless, Khurana moves for a relator’s share, arguing that the DPA and SAIC Settlement constitute an “alternate civil remedy” ( o. 8:09-CR-203-T-27EAJ, 2011 WL 4431157, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2011) (same); United States v. Lustman, Criminal No. 05-40082-GPM, 2006 WL 1207145, at *3 (S.D. Ill. May 4, 2006) (“Surely Congress would have explicitly specified criminal prosecutions as an ‘alternate remedy* if it intended the result urged here.”), with United States v. Bisig, 2005 WL 3532554, at *3-5 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2005) (<HOLDING>). However, even if the DPA and SAIC Settlement 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct (B) holding that a criminal prosecution and criminal forfeiture proceeding constituted an alternate remedy and permitting award to relator (C) holding that an individual charged with criminal contempt is entitled to the full procedural protections afforded the defendant in any other criminal proceeding (D) recognizing criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment (E) holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture
Output (English): holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct