UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vsFOUAD TANANA,

Defendant.

____________________________/

Criminal No. 08-20518

HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

A Superseding Information was filed on November 6, 2008, which charged defendant

Fouad Tanana with food stamp fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024 and

18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count One), as well as wire fraud, aiding and abetting and causing an act to be

done, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and 2 (Counts Two and Three). The Superseding

Information set forth forfeiture allegations, and placed defendant on notice that the government

intended to seek a money judgment against defendant.

On November 12, 2008, defendant Fouad Tanana pleaded guilty to committing all of the

offenses charged in the Superseding Indictment, including food stamp fraud and aiding and

abetting in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 for which criminal forfeiture was

sought, and acknowledged that the government may seek, as part of defendant’s sentence, a

forfeiture money judgment against him in an amount up to $274,000.

Under federal law, any person who is convicted of food stamp fraud, in violation of 7

U.S.C. § 2024, is required to forfeit to the United States any property constituting, or derived

from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly, as a result of that violation. 18 U.S.C. § 981; 28

U.S.C. § 2461; 7 U.S.C. § 2024(h). 
2

The court is permitted to order forfeiture of an amount of money as opposed to specific

assets, and the entry of a forfeiture order in the form of a personal money judgment is

specifically authorized by Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(C) provides that, if before sentencing the

court cannot calculate the total amount of the money judgment, the court may enter a forfeiture

order that “states that the order will be amended under Rule 32.2(e)(1) when . . . the amount of

the money judgment has been calculated.” 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that a money judgment in an amount to

be determined by this court is granted and entered against defendant Fouad Tanana in favor of

the United States of America.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Preliminary Order of Forfeiture will be amended

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(e)(1) when the court determines the total amount

of proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of defendant’s violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024,

and that amount will be the amount of the money judgment against defendant.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the money judgment may be satisfied, to whatever

extent possible, from any property owned or under the control of defendant Fouad Tanana. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2,

once this Preliminary Order of Forfeiture is amended under Rule 32.2(e)(1), when the amount of

the money judgment has been determined by the court, it shall become the Final Order of

Forfeiture at the time of defendant’s sentencing and shall be made part of the sentence and

included in the Judgment. Because the forfeiture consists entirely of a money judgment, no

ancillary proceeding is required.
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the

Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and to amend it as necessary, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 32.2(e). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: October 6, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

October 6, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager