FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J ULY 13, 2011 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 83 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cr-0 03 22 -TCB-C CH-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us CHAPLIN'S, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 13 , 20 11 )Befo re TJ OFLAT, HILLan d ALARCÓN, Cir cu itJu dg es . * TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e: The so le is su e in th is ap pe al is whet he r th e fo rfei tu re o rd er i m po se d a ga in st Ch ap li n’s, In c. (“ Ch ap li n’s” ), aft er Ch ap li n’s was co nv ic te d o f ch arg es un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6 and31 U.S.C. § 5 32 4, v io la te s the Exce ss iv e Fi ne s C laus e o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. W e fi ndth atitdo es no t, an d we a ffi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s 1 jud gm en t. I. A. The fact s o f th is cas e were e xt en si ve ly set o utinou r pr ev io us op in io n t ha t affi rm edCh ap li n’s co nv ic ti on s, s ee Un it edSta te s v . Seh er, 5 62 F.3d13 44 , 13 50 –5 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (“ Seh er II” ), an d we wi ll rel ay on ly the fact s es se nt ia l t o Ch ap li n’s Ei gh th Am en dm en t ch al le ng e. Ch ap li n’s i s a jewel ry

st or e lo cat edinAtl an ta , Geor gi a, an d o wne d b y Pars ig Seh er. Pars ig Seh er’s b ro th er, Tor os Seh er (“ Seh er”) , occ as io na ll y work ed atCh ap li n’s an d a ls o o wne d h is own jewelry sto re i n At la nt a, Ch ap li n’s M id to wn

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. The Eighth Amendment re ads: “Excessive bail shall not be re quired, nor e x cessive 1 fines imposed, nor c ruel a nd unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend. VI I I .

2(“ Mi dt own ”). Bet ween19 96 an d 2 00 2, Se he r so ldjewelry in c as h- ba se d

tra ns act io ns at ath irdlo cat io n t o p eo pl e h e kne w to be dru g d eal ers . Thes e sa le s were o fte n s tru ctur edto av oi d any ind iv idua l p aym en ts inex ces s o f $1 0,0 00 , whi chwou ldha ve requi redSeh er, as th e st or e’s ag en t an d re ci pi en t o f th e cas h, t o fil e a rep ort wi th th e fed eral go ve rn m en t (“ Fo rm 83 00 ”), co nt ai ni ng in fo rm at io n ab ou t the bu y er, s uc h a s t he bu y er’s n am e an d a dd res s. 3 1 U.S.C. § 53 31 (a)– (b ). Fed eral in ve st ig at or s l earn edof S eh er’s act iv it ie s an d a rran ge d aco nt ro ll ed
bu y . Duri ng 20 05 an d 2 00 6, an Int ern al Rev enue Serv ic e (“ IRS” ) in ve st ig at orm et with S eh er o n m

ul ti pl e o ccas io ns at b ot h C hapl in ’s andMi dt own . Und er the 2 pr et en se of b ei ng a na rco ti cs tra ffi ck er, the in ve st ig at orbo ug htex pe ns iv e jewelry fro m Seh er wi th ou t co m

pl et in g F orm

83 00
. At Ch ap li n’s, the in ve st ig at orpu rch as edfro m Seh er a s etof we dd in g ri ng s fro m Ch ap li n’s i nv en to ry . Duri ng ne go ti at io ns forth atpurch as e, th e in ve st ig at or in ti m at edth athe was i nv ol ve d i n t he dru g t rad e. Seh er i ni ti al ly sug ge st edth atth e in ve st ig at orpa y

forth e ri ng s i n t hr ee s ep arat e b un dl es . Thi s p aym en t s tru ctur e 3

On seve ral of those occa sions, the investigator was a ccompa nied by Kimberly

Hubbar d, 2 the wife of a dr

ugdeale r with whom Seher ha d previously done business. The bundles would be delivere d by three people: (1) the IRS i nvestig ator; (2) Hubbar d; 3 and (3) Kar eena

Eichelbe rg er, the wife of yet another

drugdeale r with whom Seher ha d previously

done business, and who happene d to be in Chaplin’s on the day of the c ontrolled-buy
. 3wou ldall ow Se he r to av oi d fi li ng Fo rm 83 00 on Ch ap li n’s b eh al f an d t he IRS in ve st ig at orto av oi d d is cl os in g p ers on al in fo rm at io n t o t he fed eral go ve rn m en t. Sev eral m on th s l at er, ag ai n a t Ch ap li n’s, the in ve st ig at oran d S eh er co m pl et edth ei r ne go ti at io ns for th e ri ng s an d s et tl edon a pr ic e. Seh er co m m un ic at edth e p ric e as “ $2 20 ”; ho wev er, the in ve st ig at orun de rs to odth is qu ot e trul y

to m ean$2 2,0 00 . The i nv es ti ga to r ha nd edSeh er $ 3,0 00 incas h, an d Seh er re tu rn eda rece ip t, o f so rts . On a y el lo w no te , Seh er h adwrit te n t he
nu m be rs “ 22 00 .00 ,” “ 19 00 .00 ,” an d “ 30 0.0 0,” whi ch th e in ve st ig at orun de rs to od
as rep res en ti ng th e to ta l p ur ch as e p ric e, $2 2,0 00 , th e o ut st an di ng ba la nc e, $1 9,0 00 , andth e in ve st ig at or ’s do wnp aym en t, $ 3,0 00
. The in ve st ig at orreturne d t o C hapl in ’s th e fo ll owi ng da y to pi ckup th e ri ng s an d c om pl et e th e tr an sa ct io n. Se he r le d t he in ve st ig at orto Ch ap li n’s b ack -ro om . The re, the in ve st ig at orha nd edSeh er $ 19 ,00 0 i n c as h, wh ic h S eh er i m m ed ia te ly pu t i nt o asaf

e. Befo re l eav in g C hapl in ’s, th e in ve st ig at orto ldSeh er tha t h e d id
no t wan t t o c om

pl et e an y pape rwo rkforth e tr an sa ct io n; Seh er as su redhi m th at th ere wo ul d n otbe an y

pape rwo rk . Nob od y

at C hapl in ’s com

pl et edan d fi le d Fo rm 83 00 forth e ri ng s t ran sa ct io n. B.

4Ch ap li n’s was in di ct edon sev enco un ts rel at edto Seh er’s s al es an d fa il ur e

to fil e Fo rm

83 00 . The i nd ic tm en t all eg ed , am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t Ch ap li n’s 4 (1 ) “ kn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y co nduc t[e d] a fin an ci al tra ns act io n . . . in vo lv in g pr op erty rep res en te d t o b e th e p ro ceed s o f sp eci fie d u nl awfu l ac ti vi ty” (“ m on ey laun de rin g” ), in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 56 (a)( 3) (B) a nd(C); an d 5 (2 ) “ kn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y cau se [ed ] a n on fin an ci al tra de or b us in es s t o fa il to fil e a rep ort re qu ire d u nd er [3 1 U.S.C.] Sect io n 5 33 1,” invi ol at io n o f 31 U.S.C. §§ 53 24 (b )(1 ) an d (d )(2 ). Seh er’s co nduc t an d kno wled ge form edth e b as is of t he 6 We refe r to the super cedingindictment as the “indictment.” 4 These pr ovisions provide: 5 Whoever, with the intent—

. . . . (B ) to conc eal or

disguise the nature , location, source , owner ship, or control of

proper ty believed to be the proc eeds of specifie d unlawful a ctivity ; or (C) to avoid a tra

nsaction re portingrequire ment under State or Fe dera l law, conducts or attempts to conduct a financ ial transac tion involvi ngproper ty repr esente d to be the proc eeds of specifie d unlawful a ctivity , or prope rty used to conduct or

fac ilitate specified unla

wful ac tivity , shall be fined unde r this titl e or imprisoned for not more than 20 year s, or both. For purposes of this par agraph . . . the term “ repr esente d” mea ns any repr esentation made by

a law e nforc ement office r or by

another person a t the direc tion of, or with the appr oval of, a Fe dera l officia l authorized to investigate or prose cute violations of this section.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3) (B )–(C). We will ref er to this statute as “Sec tion 1956” or “§ 1956.” These pr ovisions provide: 6 (b) Dome stic Coin and Currenc y Transa ctions Involving Nonf inancial Tr ades or Businesse s.— No person sha ll, for the purpose of eva ding the repor t require ments 5in di ctm en t. Bec au se Seh er co m m it te d t he vi ol at io ns du rin g t he co ur se of h is
em pl oym en t atCh ap li n’s, Ch ap li n’s was vi cari ou sl y li ab le forhi s ac ti on s. The 7 in di ctm en t al so so ug htfor fei tu re o f “ an y an d a ll pro pe rty inv ol ve d i n” th es e of fen se s, i nc lu di ng all of C hapl in ’s in ve nt ory . Bot h c ou nt s p ro vi de d fo r fo rfei tu re, wit h the m on ey lau nd eri ng co un t g ov ern edby 18 U.S.C. § 98 2( a)(1 ), 8
an d t he rep orti ng vi ol at io n g ov ern edby 31 U.S.C. § 53 17 (c)( 1)
. 9

of sec tion 5331 or any

regulation prescribed under such sec tion— (1) c ause or

attempt to cause a nonfina ncial tra de or business to fa il to file a report requir ed under section 5331 or a

ny regulation presc ribed unde r such se ction;

. . . . (d) Criminal Penalty .—

. . . . (2) Enha nced pe nalty

for a g gravated ca ses.— Whoever violate s this section while violating a nother lawof the United States . . . shall be fined twic e the amount provided in subsection (b)( 3) or (c) (3) ( as the c ase ma

y be) of section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 10 year s, or both. 31 U.S.C. §§ 5324(b)(1), ( d)(2) . We will refer to this st atute as “ Section 5324” or “ § 5324.” The indictment also cha rg ed Chaplin’s with conspira cy to launder mone y

under 18 7 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(1) , and other violations of § 1956 and § 5324 base d on jewelr y sales that took place at Midtown. 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) provides: “The court, in imposing se ntence on a per son convicted 8 of an of fense in violation of section 1956 . . . of this titl e, shall orde r that the pe rson forf eit to the United Sates any

proper ty , rea l or persona l, involved in such offe nse, or a ny proper ty trac eable to such prope rty .” 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(1) provides: “The court in imposing se ntence for a ny violation of 9 section . . . 5324 of this title . . . shall order the de fenda nt to forfe it all property , rea l or persona l, involved in the offe nse and a ny proper ty trac eable there to.” 6The cas e wen t t o tria l i n F eb ru ary 20 07 . At th e cl os e o f th e ev id en ce, b ut

be fo re the jury was ch arg ed , Chapl in ’s pl edgu il ty to the rep orti ng vi ol at io n. Dur in g t he pl ea co ll oquy, howe ve r, Ch ap li n’s at te m pt edto pl eadgu il ty to a vi ol at io n o f 31 U.S.C. § 5 33 1, no t t o § 53 24 . Sect io n 5 33 1( a) re qu ire s an y 1 0 pe rs on “ en ga ge d i n atra de or b us in es s” to rep ort an y tra ns act io ns in vo lv in g m or e th an$1 0,0 00 incu rren cy —i .e., to fil e Fo rm

83 00 . Chapl in ’s, as the en ti ty sell in g jewelry , was u nd er an ob li ga ti on to fil e Fo rm 83 00 . As a res ul t, i t ar gu edth at § 5 32 4 c ou ldno t ap pl y

to itbe cau se § 5 32 4( b) (1 ) pu ni sh es an y on e who , “ fo r th e pu rp os e o f ev ad in g t he rep ort re qu ire m en ts of s ect io n 5 33 1[ ,]
. . . cau se [s ] or at te m pt [s ] to cau se a no nf

in an ci al tra de or b us in es s t o fa il to fil e a rep ort re qu ire d
un de r se ct io n 5 33 1.” Becaus e Ch ap li n’s was th e en ti ty requ ire d t o fi le th e rep ort, a co nv ic ti on un de r § 5 32 4 wo ul d m ean th atCh ap li n’s caus edit se lf t o fa il to fil e th e n eces sa ry

rep ort. Ch ap li n’s ar gu edth atth e Gov ern m en t o nl y pro se cu te d i t un de r § 5 32 4 b ecau se th atsec ti on , un li ke § 5 33 1, p ro vi de s fo r fo rfei ture. The Gov ern m en t d is ag reedwith C hapl in ’s arg um en t an d i ns is te d t ha t i t in te nd edto pro se cu te Ch ap li n’s u nd er § 53 24 , no t § 53 31 . The d is tri ctco urt ag reedth atth e Gov ern m en t was en ti tl edto pro se cu te th e cas e as itsaw fi t; th e co urt i nf orm edCh ap li n’s tha t i t co ul d e it he r pr oc eedto a ve rd ic t an d app eal or
We will refer

to this provisi on as “Sec tion 5331” or “§ 5331.” 1 0 7pl eadgu il ty to the ch arg e as setou t i n t he in di ctm en t. Giv enth is ch oi ce,

Ch ap li n’s p le d g ui lt y

to th e § 53 24 co un t. The jury was t he n i ns tru ct edon th e 1 1 § 1 95 6 c ou nt , andsubs eque nt ly fou ndCh ap li n’s g ui lt y . Afte r th e tr ia l, the Gov ern m en t m ov edfor a pr el im in ary or de r of

for fei tu re ag ai ns t Ch ap li n’s en ti re i nv en to ry . Accor di ng to th e Gov ern m en t, the in ve nt ory was “ in vo lv edin ” th e m on ey lau nd eri ng an d re po rti ng off en se s b ecau se it pr ov id edSeh er’s— an d, v ic ari ou sl y , Chapl in ’s—m on ey lau nd eri ng op erat io n wi th
an“ ai r of leg it im acy.” Chap li n’s ar gu edth atit s i nv en to ry was n ot“ in vo lv edin ” th e rel ev an t o ffen se s, an d t ha t s uc h afor fei tu re wo ul d v io la te th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s p ro hi bi ti on of e xc es si ve fin es . On Aug us t 1 7, 2 00 7, the di stric t co urt g ran te d the Gov ern m en t’s m ot io n a nden te reda pr el im in ary or de r of fo rfei tu re ag ai ns t Ch ap li n’s i nv en to ry pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2.2 (b ), bu t d idno t ad dr es s C hapl in ’s Eig hth Am en dm en t ar gu m en t. Uni te d S ta te s v . Seh er, 5 74 F. Sup p. 2 d 1 36 8, 1 36 9– 71 (N.D. Ga. 20 07 ) (“ Seh er I”). In ad di ti on to Ch ap li n’s i nv en to ry , th e d is tri ctco urt o rd eredCh ap li n’s t o fo rfei t $ 22 ,00 0 i n t he form of ape rs on al m on ey

jud gm en t, wh ic h re pr es en te d “ th e

At this point , the district court a lso dismi ssed the conspira cy charg e and grante d 1 1 Chaplin’s judgme nts of acquittal on the c harg es re lated to sales at Midtown. 8am ou ntof t he un de rco ve r fu nd s t ha t wer e n ev er re co ve redby the Gov ern m en t.” 1 2

Id . at 1 37 1. The di stric t co urt the n h el d asen te nc in g h eari ng on Aug us t 2 2, 2 00 7. Th e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n R ep ort (“ PSR” ) pr ep aredby the Uni te d S ta te s Pr ob at io n Offi ce ca lc ul at edCh ap li n’s To ta l Offe ns e Lev el to be 20 un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. Th e m on ey

lau nd eri ng ch arg e, as th e “ m os t s eri ou s” of t he two co un ts , see Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on , Gui de li ne s M anua l, § 3D1 .3(a ) (No v. 1 , 20 06 ), dr ov e th e Gui de li ne s fi ne ran ge ; the PSR re co m m en de d afin e fro m $6 50 ,00 0 t o $ 1,3 00 ,00 0. Atth e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt t oo k in to acco un t Ch ap li n’s ab il ity to pa y , alo ng with t he for fei tu re o rd er, an d
se nt en ceditto pa y

a $1 00 ,00 0 fi ne —$ 50 ,00 0 fo r eac h c ou nt—an d t o s erv e fi ve y ears of p ro ba ti on .

The district cour

t initi ally order ed Seher , Midtown, and Chaplin’s, jointly and 1 2 sever ally , to pay

a $54,800 per sonal money judgme nt as forf

eiture, which re prese nted the combined amount of unr ecove red f unds from the c ontrolled-buy s at Chaplin’s and Midtown. United States v. Seher, 574 F . Supp. 2d 1368, 1371 (N.D. Ga . 2007) (“ Seher I ”). Chaplin’s a lso appea led this portion of the district court’s judgment in its first appeal to this court. In our 2009 opinion, we vac ated that money judgme nt beca

use the district cour

t did not make any

finding s reg ardingthe proprie ty

of pierc ing Cha

plin’s corporate veil. United States v. Seher , 562 F.3d 1344, 1372 (11th Cir. 2009) (“ Seher I I ”). O n rema nd, the district court found that Chaplin’s operated as a

distinct entity

and ther efor e should be liable only for the $22,000 mone y

judgme nt, which re lated to the $22,000 tra nsaction underlying its convic tion. United States v. Seher, 686 F
. Supp. 2d 1323, 1327 (N.D. Ga . 2010) (“ Seher I I I ”). 9Ch ap li n’s ap pe al edit s co nv ic ti onan d s en te nc e, sp eci fic al ly the for fei tu re

or de r. Thi s co urt af

firm edth e co nv ic ti on , bu t v acat edth e fo rfei ture o rd er. Seh er II, 5 62 F.3dat 1 37 3– 74 . Und er the for fei tu re s ta tu te s, Ch ap li n’s i nv en to ry was

“ in vo lv edin ” th e rel ev an t o ffen se s, an d t he refo re was pro pe rly subjec t t o fo rfei tu re. Id . at 1 36 9. We no te d, h owe ve r, th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ad dr es s Ch ap li n’s Ei gh th Am en dm en t d efen se , andrem an de d t he cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt to rul e o n t ha t i ss ue . Id. at13 70 –7 2, 1 37 3– 74
. On re m an d, the pa rti es subm it te d b rie fs to th e d is tri ctco urt o n the Eig ht h Am en dm en t i ss ue . Chapl in ’s arg ue d t ha t the for fei tu re o rd er was ex ces si ve un de r th e th ree f

act ortes t s etou t i n Un it edSta te s v . Bro wne , 50 5 F .3d12 29 (11 th Cir
. 20 07 ). The d is tri ctco urt d is ag reedan d re in st at edth e fo rfei tu re o rd er ag ai ns t

1 3 Ch ap li n’s i nv en to ry . Uni te d S ta te s v . Seh er, 6 86 F. Sup p. 2 d 1 32 3, 1 32 7– 33 (N.D. Ga. 20 10 ) (“ Seh er III ”). Und er Br own e, th e co urt fi rs t d et erm in edth at Ch ap li n’s was withi n t he cla ss of p ers on s atwho m § 5 32 4 a nd§ 1 95 6 wer e pr in ci pa ll y

di rect ed . Id. at13 28 –2 9. Itth ende te rm in edth atth e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc es forth es e o ffen se s wer e 2 0 years a nd10 y ears im pr is on m en t
As explained in part I I , infra, the se fa ctors ar e: “( 1) whe ther the de fenda nt falls into the 1 3 class of pe rsons at whom the c riminal statute was princ ipally direc ted; (2) other

penalties authorized by

the leg islature (or

the SentencingCommi ssion); and (3) the harm c aused by the defe ndant.” United States v. B rowne , 505 F.3d 1229, 1281 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 10fo r vi ol at in g § 19 56 an d § 53 24 , res pe ct iv el y , anda m ax im um st atut ory fin e o f $1 ,50 0,0 00
. Id. at13 29 . The co urt fi na ll y no te d t ha t Ch ap li n’s co nduc t was ve ry 1 4 ha rm fu l, ev enth ou ghth e actfor whi ch itwas i nd ic te d was a go ve rn m en tco nt ro ll ed -b uy, as ot he r ev id en ce i n t he reco rdsu gg es te d t ha t Se he r’s il li ci t tra ns act io ns on Ch ap li n’s b eh al f ex te nd edbe y on d t he in di ct edin ci de nt . Id. at 13 29 –3 0. Weig hi ng th es e fac to rs ag ai ns t the va lu e o f Ch ap li n’s fo rfei te d pr op erty , $1 ,87 7,2 62 , th e co urt fo un d t ha t the for fei tu re was no t g ro ss ly di sp ro po rti on at e an d t he refo re n otvi ol at iv e o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Id . at 13 30 –3 2. Th e co urt al so no te d i n afoo tn ot e th atit s l en ie ntsen te nc e o f $1 00 ,00 0 in fin es was p red ic at edon th e v al id it y of t he for fei ture o rd er. Id . at 1 33 2 n .8. II. On ap pe al , Chapl in ’s con te nd s t ha t the ord er fo rfei ti ng it s i nv en to ry is an ex ces si ve fin e in vi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. A forf ei tu re o rd er i s 1 5
The maximumfine a g ainst corpor ate de fenda nts is $500,000 per felony conviction. 18 1 4 U.S.C. § 3571(c)(3) . Section 5324, howeve r, doubles the maximum fine if the defe ndant “violates this section while violatinganother law of the United States.” 31 U.S.C. § 5324(d)( 2). Her e, Chaplin’s violated § 5324 while a lso violating § 1956, thereby trig g eringthe doubled penalty for the § 5324 c ount. The district cour

t’s order incorre ctly

stated that Chaplin’s fine r ang e under the Sentencing Guidelines wa s $1,200,000 to $2,400,000. Seher I I I , 686 F. Supp. 2d at 1329. The Gover nment conce des that this highe r figure w as incorr ect, a nd that the prope r fine r ang e under the Guidelines is $650,000 to $1,300,000. Our a naly sis assumes, but does not hold, that the Eighth Ame ndment applies to 1 5 corpor ations. The Supreme Court has neve r held that this amendment a pplies to corporations. See B rowning -F erris Inds. of Vt., Inc. v. Ke lco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 276 n.22, 109 S. Ct. 11un co ns ti tu ti on al ly exces si ve when itis “ gr os sl y di sp ro po rti on al to th e g rav it y of a de fen da nt ’s off

en se .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bajak ajian , 52 4 U.S. 3 21 , 33 4, 1 18 S. Ct. 20 28 , 20 36 , 14 1 L. Ed. 2 d 3 14 (19 98 ). Thi s s ta nd ardna rro ws the jud ic ia l ro le in
as se ss in g t he ex ces si ve ne ss of f or fei tu re o rd ers ; ra th er tha n s tri ctpro po rti on al it y , we rev ie w fin es on ly for g ro ss di sp ro po rti on al it y . Id. at33 7, 1 18 S. Ct. at20 37
. Ournarro wedrol e ackno wled ge s p rin ci pl es of i ns ti tu ti on al co m pe te nc e: pr op orti on al it y

an al y se s ar e “ in he ren tl y

im pr eci se ” an d b es t k ep t wi th in th e pr ov in ce o f le gi sl atur es , no t co urts . See i d. at33 6, 1 18 S. Ct. at20 37 (“ [J ]udg m en ts ab ou t the ap pr op ria te pu ni sh m en t fo r anoff en se be lo ng inth e fi rs t in st an ce t o t he leg is la tu re. . . . [A] ny j ud ic ia l d et erm in at io n re ga rd in g the gra vi ty of a pa rti cu la r cri m in al off

en se wil l b e in he ren tl y

im pr eci se .”). The pa rti es an d s om e d eci si on s fr om th is co urt re fer t o thr ee fa ct or s, art ic ul at edinUni te d S ta te s v . Bro wne , 50 5 F .3d12 29 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ), th atgu id e ou r gr os s- di sp ro po rti on al it y in qu iry: “ (1 ) whe th er the de fen dantfal ls in to th e cl as s of pe rs on s atwho m

th e cri m in al st atut e was pri nc ip al ly dire ct ed ; (2 ) ot he r

2909, 2920 n.22, 106 L . Ed. 2d 219 (1989). B ut cf. F irst Nat’l B ank of B oston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 778, 778 n.14, 98 S. C t. 1407, 1416, 55 L . Ed. 2d 707 (1978) ( rec ognizi ngthat the Fir st Amendment applies to c orporations). Be cause we f ind that the forf

eiture or der is not an excessive fine, w e nee d not decide this ante cede nt issue. 12pe na lt ie s au th or iz edby the leg is la tu re (o r th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ); a nd(3)

th e h arm cau se d b y

th e d efen da nt ,” id . at 1 28 1. 1 6 The m urki ne ss of t he se fact or s d em on st rat es th e in he ren t d iff ic ul ty of
m on et iz in g t he gra vi ty of anoff en se . Our ca se s h av e th eref or e as si gn edgre at weig htto th e fi ne s ap pr ov edby Con gr es s an d t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . Co ng res s, as a rep res en ta ti ve bo dy, can d is ti ll th e m on et ary va lu e so ci ety pl aces on ha rm fu l co nduc t; for fei tu res fal li ng be lo w th e m ax im um st atut ory fin es fora gi ve n o ffen se th eref

or e rec ei ve a “ stro ng pre su m pt io n” of c on st itut io na li ty. Uni te d S ta te s v . 81 7 N.E. 29 th Driv e, W il to n M an or s, Fl a., 17 5 F .3d13 04 , 13 09 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . The Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s re fle ctin st itut io na l ex pe rti se an d
m on et iz e cu lp ab il it y

“ with e ve n g reat er p reci si on th ancri m in al leg is la ti on ”; “ a de fen da ntwou ldne edto pre se nta ve ry co m pe ll in g a rg um en t” to su gg es t tha t a fo rfei tu re wi th in th e g ui de li ne ran ge is co ns ti tu ti on al ly exces si ve . Id. at13 10
. The se ge ne ral pri nc ip le s, h owe ve r, do no t s ug ge stth atfor fei tu res ab ov e ei th er the st atut ory

m ax im um fin e o r th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e are pre su m pt iv el y in va li d. Id . at 1 30 9 n .9. In st ead , su ch for fei tures si m pl y rece iv e cl os er s cru ti ny,

These f actor s are not an exclusive chec klist, however. “ [I ]twould be futile to attempt 1 6 a def initive checklist of re levant fa ctors. The rele vant fa ctors will nece ssarily vary from ca se to case .” United States v. One Parce l Prop. L ocate d at 427 and 429 Ha ll St ., Montgome ry , Montgome ry

Cnty ., Ala., 74 F .3d 1165, 1172 (11th Cir. 1996) (c itations omi tted). 13bu t “ [a] forf ei tu re fa r inex ces s o f th e st atut ory fin e ran ge . . . is li ke ly to v io la te th e Exc es si ve Fin e Cl au se .” Id .; s ee al so Bajak ajian , 52 4 U.S. at33 7– 39 , 11 8 S
. Ct . at 2 03 8 (h ol di ng th ata fo rfei tu re o f $3 57 ,14 4 was ex ces si ve wher e th e m ax im um fin e und er the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es was $ 5,0 00 ). W e b eg in ou r an al y si s wi th th e fi rs t Br own e fac to r—wh ethe r Ch ap li n’s i s am on g t he pri nc ip al tar ge ts of t he for fei tu re-aut ho riz in g s ta tu te s. Here , th os e st atut es are the m on ey

lau nd eri ng st atut e, § 1 95 6, an d t he rep orti ng vi ol at io n, § 5 32 4. Ch ap li n’s ar gu es th atitwas n otth e p rimary tar ge t o f § 5 32 4 b ecau se , as th e in st itut io n re qu ire d t o fi le rep orts un de r § 5 33 1, i t co ul d n ot“ cau se ” it se lf t o fai l t o fi le a rep ort. Whil e we ap pr eci at e th e li ng ui st ic awkwa rdne ss of c ha rg in g Ch ap li n’s u nd er § 53 24 , Chapl in ’s do es no t ar gu e th atitis no t the pri nc ip al tar ge t of th e § 19 56 m on ey

lau nd eri ng co un t. Acco rd in gl y , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ct co urt’s co nc lu si on th atCh ap li n’s “ st an d[ s] at t he de ad -cen te r of [§ 1 95 6’s] ta rg et edcla ss ” an d t he refo re i s t he pro pe r ta rg etof afor fei ture-aut ho riz in g s ta tu te . The ne xtBro wne fact or

—the av ai labl e se nt en ces —s ug ge st s t ha t Ch ap li n’s
was co nv ic te d o f ve ry

ser io us cri m es . If Ch ap li n’s wer e a n atur al pe rs on , itwou ld ha ve face d s ta tu to ry

m ax im um in carc erat io n t erm s o f twe nt y y ears forvi ol at in g § 1 95 6 a ndten y ears for

vi ol at in g § 53 24 . The s ta tu to ry m ax im um fin es for th es e two co nv ic ti on s ar e si gn ifi can t, t ot al in g $ 1,5 00 ,00 0. Th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es 14fin e ran ge su gg es ts a si m il ar m ax im um pu ni sh m en t, ra ng in g fr om $6 50 ,00 0 t o $1 ,30 0,0 00
. 1 7 The las t Br own e fac to r—the ha rm cau se d b y

th e d efen da nt—al so weig hs in fav orof t he for fei tu re o rd er. Seh er, o n C hapl in ’s beh al f, st ru ctur edth e $ 22 ,00 0 tra ns act io n t o a vo idfil in g F orm 83 00 be cau se he be li ev edth e cas h a t i ss ue rep res en te d t he pro ceed s o f drug sal es . Atte m pt in g t o h id e dru g m on ey is ha rm fu l in an d o f it se lf. Se e Bajak ajian , 52 4 U.S. at33 9, 1 18 S. Ct. at20 39 (co nt em pl at in g the harm

“ cau se d b y

a hypo th et ic al dru g d eal er wh o wi ll fu ll y fai ls to rep ort t ak in g $ 12 ,00 0 o utof t he co un try in o rd er t o p ur ch as e dru gs ”). Tha t the
sa le was t he pro du ctof ago ve rn m en t s ti ng is irr el ev an t; § 1 95 6( a)(3 ), fo r whi ch Ch ap li n’s was co nv ic te d, co nt em pl at es su cha co nt ro ll ed -b uy. The pro vi si on pu ni sh es cert ai n t ran sa ct io ns “ in vo lv in g p ro pe rty repr es en te d t o b e th e p ro ceed s o f sp eci fie d unl awfu l ac ti vi ty,” and“ th e te rm ‘ rep res en te d’ m ean s an y rep res en ta ti on
Chaplin’s contends that $1,500,000 is the incorr ect c alculation for the statutory 1 7 maxi mum fine. It ag ain asser ts its argument that the Gover nment should have prose cuted it under § 5331, a

nd not under § 5324, a

nd that the maxim um fine under § 5331 is $500,000. Combined with § 1956’s $500,000 max imum fine, Chaplin’s claims that the forf eiture or der, valued at $1,877,262, should be compare d with $1,000,000, and not with $1,500,000. This argument is unconvincing . Chaplin’s pled guilty to § 5324; even if it was not the primary targ et of that off ense, its guilty

plea ope ned it to punishment authorized for violations of that offe nse. We are evaluating the f

orfe iture orde r for

excessiveness; the ava ilable punishments under the statute to which Chaplin’s pled guilty seem to be a

sensible compar ator. F urthermor e, this argument does not disturb the $1,300,000 maxi mum fine under the SentencingGuidelines, which was ba sed on the § 1956 c onviction. 15m ad e b y

a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( a)(3 ). Co ng res s th eref or e co nt em

pl at edth e v ery si tu at io n h ere, an d c on cl ud edth atth e co nduc t was su ffi ci en tl y

ser io us to warran t 2 0 years i m pr is on m en t, a $ 50 0,0 00 fin e, an d fo rfei tu re o f an y

pro pe rty inv ol ve d i n t he off en se . Ch ap li n’s ar gu es th atth e $ 22 ,00 0 t ran sa ct io n was anis ol at edev en t an d i s th e o nl y co nduc t l in ki ng itto il le ga l ac ti vi ty. Evi de nc e in th e rec or d c on tra di ct s th is ass ert io n, h owe ve r. Fir st , th e ri ng -p ur ch as in g t ran sa ct io n b etweenSeh er an d th e IRS in ve st ig at orsp an ne d s ev eral m on th s; th e in it ia l co nt actoc cu rredon Apri l 28 , 20 05 , andth e tr an sa ct io n c on cl ud edon Aug us t 2 5, 2 00 5. Thi s p ro lo ng ed 1 8 ti m e fra m e d em on st rat es th atth e tr an sa ct io n was no t the pro du ctof o ne , m om en ta ry

lap se inin di vi du al jud gm en t o r co rp or at e o ve rs ig ht . See Un it edSta te s v. Do dg e Car av anGran d S E/Sp ort Van , 38 7 F .3d75 8, 7 63 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4) (co ns id eri ng “ th e ex te ntan d dur at io n o f th e cri m in al co nduc t” init s Ei gh th Am en dm en t an al y si s (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Bie ri, 6 8 F .3d23 2, 2 36 (8t h C ir. 19 95 ))). The seque nce of

events at Chaplin’s procee ded in this order. O n April 28, 2005, the 1 8 I RS i nvestig ator, a long w ith Hubbard, met with Seher at Chaplin’s; Seher showe d the I RS investigator one set of

ring s and propose d structuringthe transa ction. On J uly 21, 2005, the I RS investigator and Hubba

rd re turned to Chaplin’s, picked out a differ ent set of rings, a

nd agree d on the $22,000 price with Seher; the IRS i nvestig ator pa id $3,000. On J uly 22, 2005, the I RS investigator retur

ned to Chaplin’s, met with Seher in the ba ck-r oom, and g ave Sehe r the rema ining $19,000 in ca sh; the investigator also picked up one of the two ring s that day . And, on August 25, 2005, the investigator picked up the second ring f rom Chaplin’s. 16Seco nd , th e IRS in ve st ig at orpu rch as eda Ro le x wat ch fro m Seh er wi th $1 2,8 00 incas h re pr es en te d t o b e dru g p ro ceed s wi th ou t co m pl et in g F orm

83 00
. Altho ug h t hi s p ur ch as e was co m pl et edat M id to wn, the IRS i nv es ti ga to r fi rs t s aw th e wat ch du rin g h is Ju ly 21, 2 00 5 v is itto Ch ap li n’s an d t he n t rie d i t o n dur in g a vi si t t o C hapl in ’s onAug us t 2 5, 2 00 5. We m ay reas on ab ly infe r th atSeh er, o r so m eo ne els e, tr an sp orte d t he watc h fr om Ch ap li n’s t o M id to wn, wh ere S eh er an d th e IRS in ve st ig at orco nduc te d a no th er ca sh tra ns act io n u si ng pu rp orte d d ru g pr oc eed s. Th is tra ns act io n i m pl ic at es Ch ap li n’s i nv en to ry iny etan ot he r drug ta in te d a tt em

ptto ev ad e fed eral cu rren cy rep orti ng requi rem en ts . Thi rd , Seh er’s co m

m en ts on Ju ly 22, 2 00 5, s ug ge stth athe was n otth e o nl y Ch ap li n’s em

pl oyee in vo lv edinth e m on ey -laun de rin g o pe rat io n. Th atday , th e IRS i nv es ti ga to r m etwith S eh er i n t he ba ck -ro om at C hapl in ’s to co m

pl et e th e $2 2,0 00 tra ns act io n. Th e IRS in ve st ig at orha nd edSeh er a s ta ckof $ 19 ,00 0 i n cas h a ndrep eat ed ly stat edth athe di d n otwanthi s n am e o n a ny form s, a re fere nc e to Fo rm 83 00 . Duri ng th e m eet in g, the IRS i nv es ti ga to r no ti cedan othe r Ch ap li n’s
em pl oyee work in g i n t he ba ck -ro om —ap pa ren tl y

fab ric at in g jewel ry

—an d
ex pr es se d c on cern ab ou t the em pl oyee’s pre se nc e. Seh er m ol li fie d t he

17in ve st ig at or ’s con cern s b y st at in g, “ th at ’s m

y pa rtn er, m an .” No ev id en ce 1 9
su gg es ts th atth is “pa rtn er” was an yth in g b uta Ch ap li n’s em pl oyee; the reco rd th eref or e supp orts anin fere nc e th atSeh er’s cri m in al co nduc t as a Ch ap li n’s
em pl oyee ex te nd edbe y on d “ th e in di ctm en t’s fo urco rn ers .” 2 0

The tra nscript of the e x chang e re ads: 1 9 Under cover : . . . . Hey , that guy in there is cool, huh? That guy in there that’s sitti ngthere ? T[oros] Seher: Tha

t’s my partne r, man. Under cover : Okay . I ’m just, you know — the g ame T[oros] Seher: L isten, listen, lis ten to me, eve ry body here [uni ntelligible] Under cover : The g ame is hot right now. T[oros] Seher: Any

body that’s behind her e—and a nother thing
. . . . Seher’ s statements—“e very body here ” and “ [a] ny

body that’s behind her e”—strong ly sug g est that the third person in the ba ck-r oom of Chaplin’s was “ cool”—i.e., c omplicit in S eher ’s sche me. The district cour

t found that “the e vidence show[ed] that Seher e ng ag ed in wrong ful 2 0 conduct on the c orpora

te Def endants’ be half that e x cee ded that re flec ted within the indictment’s four c orner s.” Seher

I I I , 686 F. Supp. 2d at 1330. The court pointed to three jewelr y sales: (1) Seher sold a w eddingset to Hubbard in e x chang e for approximately

$23,000 in cash drug proce eds while wor

king at Chaplin’s in 2003; (2) Hubbard me t with Seher at Chaplin’s on April 27, 2005—the day

befor e the IRS i nvestig ator met with Seher —to discuss the purcha se of a diamond cross pe ndant; and (3) Eichelbe rg er w as see n arguing w ith Seher on April 28, 2005—the date that the I RS i nvestig ator fir st met with S eher —about a pur chase . I d. These events, a ccor ding to the c ourt, “off er[] further support for

the proposition that Seher c ontinued to do business with drugdeale rs and their wives we ll into 2005, a practice that he continued throughout his employ

ment with Chaplin’s and Midtown.” I d. Chaplin’s contends that the evidenc e in the re cord doe s not support such finding s. But the e vidence in the rec ord supports the finding s described in the text above, and those finding s demonstrate tha t Chaplin’s conduct was suff iciently criminal to justify

the forf eiture or der. B eca

use we may

aff irm the district court’s judg ement on any ground, we need not e valuate the district court’s c ontested finding s. See B ankshot Billiards, Inc. v. City of Oc ala, 634 F .3d 1340, 1349 (11th Cir. 2011) (a ffirming the district court’s judgment on differ ent grounds than that re lied upon by the district court). 18Als o re le vantto our an al y si s, b ey on d t he Bro wne fact or s, i s t he in te rp la y

be twee n the for fei tu re o rd er an d t he fin e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt. Ch ap li n’s
was subjec t t o ast atut ory m ax im um fin e o f $1 ,50 0,0 00 an d aSen te nc in g Gui de li ne s fi ne ran ge of $ 65 0,0 00 to $1 ,30 0,0 00 . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t im po se a fi ne an ywhe re n ear t he se fig ur es ; i t i m po se d a$1 00 ,00 0 fi ne . Its de ci si on to do so was b as edon th e fac t tha t i t h adalr eady ord eredfor fei tu re o f Ch ap li n’s i nv en to ry . Seh er III , 68 6 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 33 2 n .8 (N.D. Ga. 20 10 ) (“ [T]he Co urt n ot es th atitacco un te d fo r th e eff ect s o f th es e fo rfei tu res when it
se nt en ced[Ch ap li n’s], for d es pi te th e Gui de li ne s’ reco m m en de d fi ne ran ge , Ch ap li n’s s en te nc e was mit ig at edto a fi ne th atfel l b etween.8 an d 4 .1 p erce ntof th e Gui de li ne s re co m

m en da ti on . . . .”). Hadth e d is tri ctco urt b el ie ve d t ha t i t co ul d n otco ns ti tu ti on al ly im po se th e fu ll for fei tu re, i t l ik el y wou ldha ve in crea se d th e am ou ntof t he fin e. Aga in stth es e fac to rs we m us t wei ghth e v al ue of the for fei te d p ro pe rty. The parti es ag ree t ha t $ 1,8 77 ,26 2 i s t he accu rat e v al ue of C hapl in ’s in ve nt ory . Ch ap li n’s al so arg ue s t ha t we s ho ul d i nc lu de withi n t hi s ca lc ul at io n t he $1 00 ,00 0 fin e an d t he $2 2,0 00 m on ey jud gm en t, fo r a t ot al of $ 1,9 99 ,26 2. As su min g, witho utde ci di ng , th atCh ap li n’s i s co rrec t i n thi s re ga rd , we do no t fi ndth e fo rfei tu re o rd er t o b e g ro ss ly dis pr orti on at e to th e g rav ity of C hapl in ’s cri m e. 19Thi s fi gu re ex ceed s b ot h t he st atut ory m ax im um fin e an d t he hi gh -en d o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es fin e ran ge . The “ st ro ng pre su m pt io n” of
co ns ti tu ti on al it y

th eref or e d oe s n otap pl y . But“ Co ng res s h as auth or iz edbo th a fin e an d fo rfei tu re as pa rt o f th e p un is hm en t fo r” b ot h § 19 56 an d § 53 24 , whi ch
su gg es ts th atCo ng res s “ do es no t co ns id er a p un is hm en t s om ewh atab ov e th e st atut ory fin e ran ge to be ex ces si ve .” 81 7 N.E. 29 th Driv e, 17 5 F .3dat 1 30 9 n .9. The ex tra$4 99 ,26 2 abo ve th e st atut ory m ax im um , a 33 .3 p erce ntin crea se , and $6 99 ,26 2 abo ve th e Gui de li ne s fi ne , a 53 .8 p erce ntin crea se , fal l wel l b el ow the rel at iv e d iff

eren ces ap pr ov edof i n o th er ca se s. See , e.g., Un it edSta te s v . Cas te ll o, 61 1 F .3d11 6, 1 18 , 12 3– 24 (2dCir . 20 10 ) (ap pr ov in g o f $1 2,0 12 ,92 4 fo rfei tu re whe re the st atut ory

m ax im um sen te nc e was $2 50 ,00 0, b utwher e th e d efen da nt ’s il le ga l s ch em e in vo lv edm or e th an$6 00 mil li on ); Un it edSta te s v . Jo se , 49 9 F .3d 10 5, 1 12 –1 3 (1 stCir . 20 07 ) (ap pr ov in g a$1 14 ,94 8 fo rfei tu re wh ere t he m ax im um Gui de li ne s fi ne was $ 30 ,00 0) ; Un it edSta te s v . Ahm ad , 21 3 F .3d80 5, 8 17 , 81 9 (4 th Cir . 20 00 ) (ap pr ov in g a$1 01 ,58 7.4 2 fo rfei tu re wh ere t he st atut ory m ax im um fin e was $2 50 ,00 0, b utth e fi ne un de r th e Gui de li ne s was on ly $5,0 00 ). Fu rth erm or e, Ch ap li n’s cr im in al co nduc t was m or e se rio us th anth e co nduc t atis su e incas es wher e co urts ha ve fou nda fo rfei tu re awar d e xc es si ve . In Bajak ajian , forex am

pl e, th e d efen da nt ’s on ly crim e was a rep orti ng off en se ; h e 20di d n otrep ort tha t h e was tra ns po rti ng m or e th an$1 0,0 00 ou ts id e th e Uni te d

St at es . 52 4 U.S. at32 4– 25 , 11 8 S . Ct. at20 32 . The cu rren cy , ho wev er, was

“un rel at edto an y

ot he r il le ga l ac ti vi ti es ”; th e d efen da ntwas “ no t a m on ey laun de rer, a dru g t raff

ic ke r, ora ta x e va de r.” Id . at 3 38 , 11 8 S . Ct. at20 38 . A fo rfei tu re o f $3 57 ,14 4, wh ere t he Gui de li ne fin e was on ly $5,0 00 , was the refo re ex ces si ve . And , inUni te d S ta te s v . One Si ng le Fam il y Res id en ce Lo cat edat 18 75 5 No rth Bay Ro ad , Mia m i, 1 3 F .3d14 93 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ), th e o wne rs of t he fo rfei te d re si de nc e h adho st edanil li ci t p ok er g am e “ in vo lv in g s om e o f [the
own er’s] relat iv es an d a ss oc ia te s.” Id . at 1 49 4. We hel d t ha t the for fei tu re o f th is pr op erty —wh ic h was va lu edat $ 15 0,0 00 an d s erv edas t he pri nc ip al res id en ce o f atlea stfou r pe op le —v io la te d t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t. The na tu re o f th is

“ ga m bl in g o pe rat io n” was fa r ou ts id e th e in te nd edsco pe of the fed eral st atut e th at cri m in al iz edil le ga l g am

bl in g; th e o wne rs ’ po ke r ga m e was “ sp or ad ic ” an d “ of in si gn ifi can t m on et ary pr op orti on s.” Id . at 1 49 8 (quo ti ng H.R. Rep . No. 9 1- 15 49 , at53 (19 70 ), rep rin te d i n 1 97 0 U.S.C.C .A.N. 400 7, 4 02 9)
. Ch ap li n’s cr im in al co nduc t was no t s im il arl y be ni gn . Unl ik e th e Bajak ajian de fen da nt , Chapl in ’s was a m on ey lau nd ererth atlau nd ereddru g p ro ceed s. It s co nduc t was no t a m ere r ep orti ng vi ol at io n. An d, u nl ik e th e o wne rs inOne S in gl e

21Fam il y

Res id en ce, Ch ap li n’s cr im in al act iv it ie s fe ll squa rel y withi n t he in te nd ed
sc op e o f th e fed eral m on ey lau nd eri ng st atut e, § 1 95 6.

III. Tak in g a ll of t he se fact or s t og ethe r, we can no t s ay th atth e fo rfei tu re o rd er was gro ss ly dis pr op orti on at e to th e g rav it y of C hapl in ’s cri m e. The d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t i s, the refo re, AFFIR MED.

22