1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice)

 glincenberg@birdmarella.com

Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice)

 aneuman@birdmarella.com

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice)

 gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

 pcambria@lglaw.com

Erin McCampbell Paris (admitted pro hac vice)

 eparis@lglaw.com

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

[Additional counsel listed on next page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED 

FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 2

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Eric W. Kessler, 009158

 eric.kesslerlaw@gmail.com

Kessler Law Group

6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210

Scottsdale, AZ 85253

Telephone: (480) 644-0093

Facsimile: (480) 644-0095

Bruce S. Feder, 004832

 bf@federlawpa.com

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 257-0135 

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following 

Proposed Forfeiture Jury Instructions. 

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and

Procedures Manual (May 2023) § II(C)(3), Gary S. Lincenberg hereby attests that all

other signatories listed, and on whose behalf this filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s

content and have authorized its filing.

DATED: November 5, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

By: /s/ Gary S. Lincenberg

Gary S. Lincenberg

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 3

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

DATED: November 5, 2023 Kessler Law Group

By: /s/ Eric W. Kessler

Eric W. Kessler

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

DATED: November 5, 2023 Paul J. Cambria

Erin McCampbell Paris

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria

Paul J. Cambria

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

DATED: November 5, 2023 Feder Law Office, P.A.

By: /s/ Bruce S. Feder

Bruce S. Feder

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 3 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 4

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 1]

[Criminal Forfeiture Phase of Trial]1 2

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, your verdict in this case doesn’t complete your 

jury service as it would in most cases, because there is another matter you must now 

consider. You must decide whether the defendants should forfeit certain property to the 

United States as a part of the penalty for the crimes charged in Counts One, Fifty-Two, 

Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Ninety-Nine, and One Hundred of the 

Superseding Indictment.

Federal law provides that where, as here, a defendant is convicted of a conspiracy to 

violate the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, such a defendant may be required to forfeit to the 

1 Government Authorities: Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, T6 (2017 ed.) 

(Forfeiture Proceedings) (to be given before supplemental evidentiary proceedings or 

supplemental argument of counsel) (adapted); Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a) 

and (b); 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C); Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 39 (1995) (“Our 

precedents have likewise characterized criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment 

imposed following conviction of a substantive criminal offense.”); United States v. 

Lazarenko, 476 F.3d 642, 647 (9th Cir. 2007) (criminal forfeiture operates in personam

against a defendant; it is part of his punishment following conviction); United States v. 

Lazarenko, 504 F. Supp. 2d 791, 796-97 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Rule 32.2(a) requires only that 

the indictment give notice of the forfeiture in generic terms; that the Government did not 

itemize all of the property subject to forfeiture until much later was of no moment).

2 Defense Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) (“Any property, real or personal, which 

constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of section 215, 471, 472, 

473, 474, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 485, 486, 487, 488, 501, 502, 510, 542, 545, 656, 

657, 670, 842, 844, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1032, or 1344 of this title 

or any offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) 

of this title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”). See Dkt. 230 at 63 (Forfeiture 

Allegation One).

18 U.S.C § 982(a)(1) (“The court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of an 

offense in violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 of this title, shall order that the person 

forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any 

property traceable to such property”). See Dkt. 230 at 77 (Forfeiture Allegation Two).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 4 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 5

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

United States all right, title, and interest in any and all property, real or personal, 

constituting, or derived from proceeds traceable to Count 1, which concerns: an agreement 

between two or more persons to commit at least one Travel Act offense as charged in 

Counts 2-51 of the indictment by promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, a business 

enterprise or enterprises involving prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State 

in which they were committed.

In this case, since you have found the defendants guilty of Count One, you must 

consider whether the property identified in the Special Verdict Form I will give to you is of 

this character.

Federal law also provides that where, as here, a defendant is convicted of a money 

laundering offense, such a defendant may be required to forfeit to the United States all 

right, title, and interest in any and all property, real or personal, involved in the offense, 

and any property traceable to such property. In this case, since you have found the 

defendants guilty of money laundering offenses, you must consider whether the property 

specified in the Special Verdict Form I will give to you is of this character.

To “forfeit” a thing is to be divested or deprived of the ownership of it as a part of 

the punishment allowed by the law for certain criminal offenses. To decide whether and to 

what extent property should be forfeited, you should consider all the evidence you have 

already heard, plus any additional evidence that will be presented to you after these 

instructions.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 5 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 6

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 2]

[Forfeiture Proceeding Follows Guilty Verdict]3

[This Instruction and all following instructions to be read 

before the jury begins its deliberations on forfeiture]

While deliberating concerning the issue of forfeiture, you must not reexamine your 

previous determination regarding the defendants’ guilt. However, all the instructions 

previously given to you concerning the duties of the jury, your consideration of the 

evidence, what is and is not evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, expert testimony, 

separate consideration of each defendant, your duty to deliberate together, your duty to 

base your verdict solely on the evidence without prejudice, bias, or sympathy, and the 

necessity of a unanimous verdict, will continue to apply during these supplemental 

deliberations. 

3 Government Authorities: Eleventh Circuit Model Jury Instructions, T6 (2017 ed.) 

(adapted); Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. § 981; United States v. 

Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 331 (6th Cir. 2010) (defendant is not permitted to relitigate the 

legality of his conduct or otherwise attempt to undermine the jury’s finding of guilt during 

the forfeiture phase; affirming district court’s refusal to let defendant introduce evidence 

tending to show his conduct was not illegal, and holding that in the forfeiture phase, the 

legality of the conduct is “no longer a live issue;” the only question is the nexus between 

the conduct and the offense).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 6 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 7

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 3]

[Forfeiture – Scope of Jury’s Determination]4 5

Your duty at this phase of the proceeding is solely to determine whether the 

government has proven the required nexus between the property sought for forfeiture and 

the offense(s) for which you have found the defendant(s) guilty, and if so, how much of 

that property should be forfeited.

You should not consider what might happen to the property in determining whether 

the property is subject to forfeiture; the disposition of any property that is declared 

4 Government Authorities: Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A) (only question during 

forfeiture phase is whether evidence establishes requisite nexus between underlying crimes 

of conviction and property sought to be forfeited); United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119, 

1132 (9th Cir. 2005) (district court properly instructed jury that questions of ownership 

“were not before them”); United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2005) 

(explaining that the primary purpose of Rule 32.2(b)(2) was to preserve the resources of 

the court and third parties by deferring the ownership issue to the ancillary proceeding, 

thus avoiding duplicative litigation); United States v. Andrews, 530 F.3d 1232, 1236 (10th 

Cir. 2008) (once forfeitability is determined, the court does not – “and indeed may not” --

determine ownership, as that issue is deferred to the ancillary proceeding).

5 Defense Authorities: See United States v. Armstrong, No. CRIM 05-130, 2007 WL 

809508, at *4 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2007) (“A determination of whether all, some or none of 

the money sought to be forfeited is linked to the offense for which the defendant was 

convicted necessarily entails establishing a nexus between the property and the offense. 

Thus, Rule 32.2(b)(4) is applicable to the third sentence in Rule 32.2(b)(1) and a jury may 

determine the amount of money subject to forfeiture, if requested by a party in the 

case.”) (emphasis added); United States v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 4:01-CR-061, 2013 WL 

8118660, at *6 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 4, 2013) (“When Rule 32.2(b)(1) and (4) are read 

together, the Court concludes that the jury must determine two intertwined and inseparable 

issues regarding forfeiture: (1) whether the government has proved the requisite nexus 

between the proceeds (i.e. cost savings) and the offense charged in Count One; and (2) the 

property, i.e. amount of proceeds subject to forfeiture. Assuming arguendo that the jury 

makes a finding in favor of the government on the nexus issue and connects the offense 

(Count One) to specific proceeds (Tyson’s cost savings), then the jury necessarily would 

have to determine the amount of proceeds subject to forfeiture. The amount of the 

proceeds subject to forfeiture would have to be determined in order for the jury to find a 

nexus between the property and the offense.”) (emphasis added).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 7 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 8

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

forfeited is exclusively a matter for the Court to decide. Similarly, if any property has 

been transferred to a third party, the Court will later determine the rights of that third party 

to the property.

Some of the property that the government claims is subject to forfeiture may be in 

the name of one or more defendants and persons or business entities other than the 

defendants. However, any interest that any person other than a defendant may claim to 

such property will be taken into account by the Court in a separate proceeding. Interests of 

persons or entities other than any of the defendants are not for your consideration.

Your sole task is to decide whether the defendants’ interest in the property, 

whatever that interest may be, is subject to forfeiture under the applicable law.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 8 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 9

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 4]

[Standard of Proof]6 7

With two important exceptions, all previous instructions will continue to apply to 

your deliberations. The first exception is that during this phase, the government’s burden 

is no longer proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but, instead, is simply proof by 

a preponderance of the evidence, which I will define for you. 

The second exception is that during this phase, you will consider a component of 

the potential punishment to be imposed on the defendant(s), but your sole task is to 

6 Government Authorities: Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 39 (1995) (“Our 

precedents have likewise characterized criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment 

imposed following conviction of a substantive criminal offense.”); United States v. 

Lazarenko, 476 F.3d 642, 647 (9th Cir. 2007) (criminal forfeiture operates in personam

against a defendant; it is part of punishment following conviction); United States v. 

Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1998) (preponderance standard is 

constitutional because criminal forfeiture is not a separate offense, but only an additional 

penalty for an offense that was established beyond a reasonable doubt).

7 Defense Authorities: See United States v. Armstrong, No. CRIM 05-130, 2007 WL 

809508, at *4 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2007) (“A determination of whether all, some or none of 

the money sought to be forfeited is linked to the offense for which the defendant was 

convicted necessarily entails establishing a nexus between the property and the offense. 

Thus, Rule 32.2(b)(4) is applicable to the third sentence in Rule 32.2.(b)(1) and a jury may 

determine the amount of money subject to forfeiture, if requested by a party in the 

case.”) (emphasis added); United States v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 4:01-CR-061, 2013 WL 

8118660, at *6 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 4, 2013) (“When Rule 32.2(b)(1) and (4) are read 

together, the Court concludes that the jury must determine two intertwined and inseparable 

issues regarding forfeiture: (1) whether the government has proved the requisite nexus 

between the proceeds (i.e. cost savings) and the offense charged in Count One; and (2) the 

property, i.e. amount of proceeds subject to forfeiture. Assuming arguendo that the jury 

makes a finding in favor of the government on the nexus issue and connects the offense 

(Count One) to specific proceeds (Tyson’s cost savings), then the jury necessarily would 

have to determine the amount of proceeds subject to forfeiture. The amount of the 

proceeds subject to forfeiture would have to be determined in order for the jury to find a 

nexus between the property and the offense.”) (emphasis added).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 9 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 10

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

determine whether the government has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

the required connection between the crimes of which the defendants have been convicted 

and the property sought for forfeiture, and if so, the amount of that property to be forfeited. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 10 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 11

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 5]

[Burden of Proof]

8 9

In this phase of the trial, the government has the burden of proving that the property 

it seeks to forfeit is subject to forfeiture. The government must establish its forfeiture 

allegations by a preponderance of the evidence; that is, it must be more probably true than 

not true. The burden of proof stays with the government throughout this phase of the trial. 

The defendants do not have the burden of proof and are not required to produce any 

evidence.

8 Government Authorities: Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions, Civil, No 1.6 (2017 

ed.) [Preponderance of the Evidence]

9 Defense Authorities: The William J. Bauer Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions of the 

Seventh Circuit (2023 Ed.), p. 1013 (Forfeiture Burden of Proof Instruction)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 11 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 12

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 6]

[Reliance on Evidence Presented During Guilt Phase]10

In making the forfeiture determination, you should consider all of the evidence 

presented during the trial as well as the evidence presented during these post-verdict 

forfeiture proceedings, regardless of who offered it. You should evaluate the evidence and 

its credibility according to the instructions given to you earlier.

10 Government’s Authorities: Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. (b)(1)(B) (whether made by the Court 

or the jury, the nexus determination may be based upon “evidence already in the record, 

including any written plea agreement, and on any additional evidence or information 

submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as relevant and reliable.”); United States 

v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir. 2007) (finder of fact may rely on evidence from 

the guilt phase; it is not necessary for the government to reintroduce that evidence in the 

forfeiture phase).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 12 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 13

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 7]

[Forfeiture Allegations Not Evidence]

The government’s forfeiture allegations are not evidence and do not create any 

inference that the property is subject to forfeiture. The defendants have denied that the 

property is subject to forfeiture.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 13 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 14

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 8]

[Separate Consideration—Forfeiture Allegations]

11

You must give separate consideration to each property and forfeiture allegation, and 

return a separate finding as to each. Your finding as to one property and forfeiture 

allegation should not control your decision as to any other.

11 Defense Authorities: The William J. Bauer Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions of the 

Seventh Circuit (2023 Ed.), p. 1015 (Separate Consideration—Forfeiture Allegations).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 14 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 15

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 9]

(Separate Consideration—Multiple Defendants)12

The Forfeiture Allegations allege that some of the same properties are subject to 

forfeiture as to more than one defendant. You must consider the question of forfeiture

separately for each defendant. The fact that a property is forfeited as to one defendant 

does not necessarily mean that the property should be forfeited as to another defendant.

12 Defense Authorities: The William J. Bauer Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions of the 

Seventh Circuit (2023 Ed.), p. 1016 (Separate Consideration—Multiple Defendants).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 15 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 16

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 10]

[Forfeiture – Multiple Bases]13

I will soon describe the specific property the government seeks to forfeit and what 

the government must prove to forfeit such property. You will be asked to consider 

whether such property is subject to forfeiture, including on multiple grounds. You need 

not be concerned with “double-counting” of monetary amounts or “overlapping” of 

properties.

Even if you find that a particular property is subject to forfeiture for more than one 

reason, that does not mean the government will receive the property twice. However, it is 

important that you indicate on the special verdict form all bases on which you find any 

given property is subject to forfeiture.

Any issues of “double-counting” or “overlapping” will be considered by the Court 

when imposing sentence.

13 Government Authorities: Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b); 18 U.S.C. § 982; Fed. Crim. Jury 

Instr. 7th Cir. (2023 ed.), at 1015 [Separate Consideration – Forfeiture Allegations].

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 16 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 17

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 11]

[Definition of “Traceable to”]14

The term “traceable to” means that the acquisition of the property is attributable to 

the offenses charged in Counts_____, as opposed to sources other than these offenses. If 

the offenses enabled the acquisition of property, you may find the property is “traceable 

to” the offense.

14 Defense Authorities: The William J. Bauer Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions of the 

Seventh Circuit (2023 Ed.), pp. 411 (18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2) Definition of “Traceable To”).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 17 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 18

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 12]

[Proceeds Defined]15 16

“Proceeds” means property of any kind obtained directly or indirectly as a result of 

the commission of the offense giving rise to forfeiture, and any property traceable thereto, 

and is not limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offense.

15 Government Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2)(A); United States v. Real Property 

Located at 22 Santa Barbara Dr., 264 F.3d 860, 872-73 (9th Cir. 2001) (property traceable 

to criminal proceeds is forfeitable in its entirety even it has appreciated in value); United 

States v. Swanson, 394 F.3d 520, 529 n.4 (7th Cir. 2005) (a change in the form of the 

proceeds does not prevent forfeiture; property traceable to the forfeitable property is 

forfeitable as well); United States v. Hawkey, 148 F.3d 920, 928 (8th Cir. 1998) (“Certainly 

if Hawkey misappropriated funds and used them to make a profit, the original funds and 

any profits are subject to forfeiture.”).

16 Defense Authorities: The William J. Bauer Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions of the 

Seventh Circuit (2023 Ed.), p. 409 (18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2) Definition Of “Proceeds”).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 18 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 19

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 13]

[Forfeiture based on Travel Act Conspiracy Under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)]17 18

The government seeks to forfeit the following property pursuant to the findings of 

guilt on Count One:

1. As to Defendant Lacey:

a. Real Property Located at 2755 Fillmore St, San Francisco, CA 

94123;

b. Real Property Located at 3300 E. Stella Lane, Paradise Valley, AZ 

17 Government Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C); 28 U.S.C. § 2641(c); Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(A) (The only question to be determined during the 

forfeiture phase is whether the evidence submitted during the guilt phase, together with 

any additional evidence received during the forfeiture phase, establishes by a 

preponderance of the evidence that there is the requisite nexus between the underlying 

crime(s) of conviction and the property sought to be forfeited by the government. “If the 

court finds that the property is subject to forfeiture, it must promptly enter a preliminary 

order of forfeiture . . . directing the forfeiture of specific property . . . .”); United States v. 

Lazarenko, 504 F. Supp. 2d 791, 796-97 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Rule 32.2(a) requires only that 

the indictment give notice of the forfeiture in generic terms; that the Government did not 

itemize all of the property subject to forfeiture until much later was of no moment); United 

States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 607 (1989) (“Congress could not have chosen stronger 

words to express its intent that forfeiture be mandatory in cases where the statute 

applied.”); United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2011) (following 

Monsanto: “When the Government has met the requirements for criminal forfeiture, the 

district court must impose criminal forfeiture, subject only to statutory and constitutional 

limits”); Lazarenko, 476 F.3d at 648 (“Upon a finding that the property involved is subject 

to forfeiture, a court must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture without regard 

to a third party’s interests in the property”); United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 

(9th Cir. 2015) (The standard of proof regarding the criminal forfeitability of property is 

preponderance of the evidence).

18 Defense Authorities: The William J. Bauer Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions of the 

Seventh Circuit (2023 Ed.), p. 398 (18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) Forfeiture Instruction—

Elements).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 19 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 20

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

85253;

c. Real Property Located at 3304 E. Stella Lane, Paradise Valley, AZ 

85253;

d. Real Property Located at 3308 E. Stella Lane, Paradise Valley, AZ 

85253;

e. Real Property Located at 6300 N. 33rd Street, Paradise Valley, AZ 

85253;

f. Real Property Located at 6314 N. 33rd Street, Paradise Valley, AZ 

85253;

g. Real Property Located at 2416 N. Foote Dr., Phoenix, AZ 85008;

h. $16,500,000.00 in K&H account number ending 1210 held in the 

name of Primus Trust and any proceeds thereof;

i. $2,412,785.47 in Midfirst Bank account number ending 4139, held 

for the benefit of Lacey, and any proceeds thereof;

j. $302,177.57 in Republic Bank of Arizona CDARS account number 

ending 8324 and any proceeds thereof;

k. $305,127.89 in Republic Bank of Arizona CDARS account number 

ending 8332 and any proceeds thereof;

l. $500,000.00 in Republic Bank of Arizona account number ending 

3126 and any proceeds thereof;

m. $140,711.61 in Republic Bank of Arizona account number ending 

2485 and any proceeds thereof;

n. $601,827.10 in Republic Bank of Arizona Certificate of Deposit 

number ending 8316 and any proceeds thereof;

o. $484,745.72 in SF Fire Credit Union account number ending 2523 

and any proceeds thereof;

p. $689,884.48 in First Federal Savings & Loan of San Rafael account 

number ending 3620 and any proceeds thereof;

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 20 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 21

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

2. As to Defendant Spear:

a. $613,573.28 in National Bank of Arizona account number ending 

3645 and any proceeds thereof;

b. $404,374.12 in National Bank of Arizona account number ending 

0178 and any proceeds thereof;

c. $260,283.40 in Live Oak Bank account number ending 6910 and any 

proceeds thereof;

d. $56,902.99 in Ascensus Broker Services account number ending 

8001 and any proceeds thereof;

e. $64,552.82 in Ascensus Broker Services account number ending 

4301 and any proceeds thereof;

f. $1,925.80 in National Bank of Arizona account number ending 0151 

and any proceeds thereof;

3. As to Defendant Brunst:

a. $5,848,729.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 6878 

and any proceeds thereof;

b. $527,624.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 6485 and 

any proceeds thereof;

c. $342,596.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 7982 and 

any proceeds thereof;

d. $306,277.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 7889 and 

any proceeds thereof;

e. $275,328.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 7888 and 

any proceeds thereof;

f. $372,878.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 4954 and 

any proceeds thereof;

g. $359,527.06 in Compass Bank account number ending 3825 and any 

proceeds thereof;

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 21 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 22

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

4. As to Defendants Lacey, Spear, and Brunst: 

a. $5,462,027.17 in Compass Bank account number ending 3873 held 

in the name of Cereus Properties and any proceeds thereof;

b. $182,182.50 in Amro Bank, N.V. account number ending 6352 held 

in the name of Ad Tech BV with Stichting Zencotrust;

c. $191,246.00 in Western Alliance Bank account number ending 6979 

held in the name of Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC. And any 

proceeds thereof;

d. $518,172.92 in Wells Fargo Bank account number ending 4455 in 

the name of Cardquiry and any proceeds thereof;

e. 747,664.15 in SAXO Payments (UK) account number ending 1262 

held in the name of the Cashflows Europe Limited and any proceeds 

thereof;

f. $499,910.01 in US Bank account number ending 0239 held in the 

name of Affordable Bail Bonds LLC and any proceeds thereof;

g. $1,600,705.61 seized from or restrained LHV Pank account number 

ending 4431 held in the name of Olist OU and any proceeds thereof.

In order to find that any of this property is subject to forfeiture, the government 

must prove both of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. The property constituted or was derived from proceeds traceable to the 

conspiracy charged in Count 1, which concerns an agreement to commit at 

least one Travel Act offense as charged in Counts 2-51; and

2. There is a nexus between the property alleged to be forfeitable and the 

offense charged in Count 1. 

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the government has 

proved each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, as to the property you 

are considering and as to the defendant you are considering, then you should check the 

“Yes” line on the Special Forfeiture Verdict Form as to that property and that defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 22 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 23

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

and also identify the amount in the account or real property that is traceable to Count One 

and therefore forfeitable to the United States. 

If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the 

government has failed to prove any one of these elements by a preponderance of the 

evidence as to the property you are considering and as to the defendant you are 

considering, then you should check the “No” line on the Special Forfeiture Verdict Form 

as to that property and that defendant. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 23 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 24

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 14]

[Forfeiture based on Money Laundering Offenses Under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)]19 20

The government seeks to forfeit the following property pursuant to the findings of 

guilt on Counts 52, 69, 70, 83, 84, 99, and 100:

1. As to Defendant Lacey:

a. Real Property Located at 2755 Fillmore St, San Francisco, CA 

94123;

b. Real Property Located at 10647 N. State Route 89A, Sedona, AZ 

86336;

c. Real Property Located at 3300 E. Stella Lane, Paradise Valley, AZ 

85253;

d. Real Property Located at 3304 E. Stella Lane, Paradise Valley, AZ 

85253;

e. Real Property Located at 3308 E. Stella Lane, Paradise Valley, AZ 

85253;

f. Real Property Located at 6300 N. 33rd Street, Paradise Valley, AZ 

85253;

g. Real Property Located at 6314 N. 33rd Street, Paradise Valley, AZ 

85253;

h. Real Property Located at 2416 N. Foote Dr., Phoenix, AZ 85008;

i. $16,500,000.00 in K&H account number ending 1210 held in the 

19 Government Authorities: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. 

§ 982(a)(1).

20 Defense Authorities: The William J. Bauer Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions of the 

Seventh Circuit (2023 Ed.), p. 412 (18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) Forfeiture Instruction).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 24 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 25

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

name of Primus Trust and any proceeds thereof;

j. $2,412,785.47 in Midfirst Bank account number ending 4139, held 

for the benefit of Lacey, and any proceeds thereof;

k. $302,177.57 in Republic Bank of Arizona CDARS account number 

ending 8324 and any proceeds thereof;

l. $305,127.89 in Republic Bank of Arizona CDARS account number 

ending 8332 and any proceeds thereof;

m. $500,000.00 in Republic Bank of Arizona account number ending 

3126 and any proceeds thereof;

n. $140,711.61 in Republic Bank of Arizona account number ending 

2485 and any proceeds thereof;

o. $601,827.10 in Republic Bank of Arizona Certificate of Deposit 

number ending 8316 and any proceeds thereof;

p. $484,745.72 in SF Fire Credit Union account number ending 2523 

and any proceeds thereof;

q. $689,884.48 in First Federal Savings & Loan of San Rafael account 

number ending 3620 and any proceeds thereof;

2. As to Defendant Spear:

a. $613,573.28 in National Bank of Arizona account number ending 

3645 and any proceeds thereof;

b. $404,374.12 in National Bank of Arizona account number ending 

0178 and any proceeds thereof;

c. $260,283.40 in Live Oak Bank account number ending 6910 and any 

proceeds thereof;

d. $56,902.99 in Ascensus Broker Services account number ending 

8001 and any proceeds thereof;

e. $64,552.82 in Ascensus Broker Services account number ending 

4301 and any proceeds thereof;

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 25 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 26

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

f. $1,925.80 in National Bank of Arizona account number ending 0151 

and any proceeds thereof;

3. As to Defendant Brunst:

a. $5,848,729.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 6878 and 

any proceeds thereof;

b. $527,624.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 6485 and 

any proceeds thereof;

c. $342,596.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 7982 and 

any proceeds thereof;

d. $306,277.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 7889 and 

any proceeds thereof;

e. $275,328.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 7888 and 

any proceeds thereof;

f. $372,878.00 in Alliance Bernstein account number ending 4954 and 

any proceeds thereof;

g. $359,527.06 in Compass Bank account number ending 3825 and any 

proceeds thereof;

4. As to Defendants Lacey, Brunst, and Spear: 

a. $5,462,027.17 in Compass Bank account number ending 3873 held 

in the name of Cereus Properties and any proceeds thereof;

b. $182,182.50 in Amro Bank, N.V. account number ending 6352 held 

in the name of Ad Tech BV with Stichting Zencotrust;

c. $191,246.00 in Western Alliance Bank account number ending 6979 

held in the name of Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC. and any 

proceeds thereof;

d. $518,172.92 in Wells Fargo Bank account number ending 4455 in 

the name of Cardquiry and any proceeds thereof;

e. 747,664.15 GBP in SAXO Payments (UK) account number ending 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 26 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 27

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1262 held in the name of the Cashflows Europe Limited and any 

proceeds thereof;

f. $499,910.01 in US Bank account number ending 0239 held in the 

name of Affordable Bail Bonds LLC and any proceeds thereof;

g. $1,600,705.61 in LHV Pank account number ending 4431 held in the 

name of Olist OU and any proceeds thereof.

In order for you to find that the property is subject to forfeiture, the government 

must prove the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

The real or personal property was involved in the offenses, as charged in Counts 52, 

69, 70, 83, 84, 99, and 100, or is property traceable to real or personal property involved in 

those offenses;

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the government has 

proved this by a preponderance of the evidence, as to the property you are considering and 

as to the defendant you are considering, then you should check the “Yes” line on the 

Special Forfeiture Verdict Form as to that property and that defendant and identify the 

amounts in such accounts or real property that is forfeitable to the United States.

If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the 

government has failed to prove this by a preponderance of the evidence, as to the property 

you are considering and as to the defendant you are considering, then you should check the 

“No” line on the Special Forfeiture Verdict Form as to that property and that defendant.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 27 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 28

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 15]

[First Amendment]21

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects not only the 

publication of speech, but also the receipt of proceeds from the publication of speech. 

Aside from those ads published by Backpage.com that the government alleged and proved 

beyond a reasonable doubt proposed an illegal transaction during the previous phase of the 

trial, you must presume both that Backpage.com’s publication of classified ads was 

protected by the First Amendment and that Backpage.com’s receipt and use of proceeds

from the publication of classified ads also were protected by the First Amendment.

21 Defense Authorities: See Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime

Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 115 (1991) (“A statute is presumptively inconsistent with the 

First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of 

their speech.”); Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay, 

868 F3d 104, 114 (2d Cir. 2017) (“[T]he First Amendment offers no protection to speech 

that proposes a commercial transaction if consummation of that transaction would 

necessarily constitute an illegal act. However, if, as here, there are plausible ways to 

complete a proposed transaction lawfully, speech proposing that transaction ‘concerns 

lawful activity’ and is therefore protected commercial speech.”) (emphasis in original); 

Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F3d 808, 822 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Central Hudson’s legality 

requirement [] has traditionally focused on the content of affected speech—i.e., whether the 

speech proposes an illegal transaction—instead of whether the speech is associated with 

unlawful activity.”) (emphasis added)).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 28 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3899529.2 29

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____

[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 16]

[Special Verdict Form]22

A Special Verdict Form has been prepared for your use. With respect to the 

property listed or described, you are asked to decide whether and to what extent it is 

subject to forfeiture to the government based on the reasons I have explained to you. Your 

decision must be unanimous. Indicate on the verdict form whether and to what extent you 

find that the property listed is subject to forfeiture, and then the foreperson should sign and 

date the form.

22 Government Authorities: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(5)(b).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1940 Filed 11/06/23 Page 29 of 29