Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 388.0

524US2

Unit: $U89

[09-11-00 13:24:46] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 321 (1998)

343

Opinion of the Court

were thus no different in purpose and effect than the in rem
forfeitures of the goods to whose value they were propor-
tioned.18 Cf. One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States,
409 U. S., at 237 (customs statute requiring the forfeiture of
undeclared goods concealed in baggage and imposing a mone-
tary penalty equal to the value of the goods imposed a “re-
medial, rather than [a] punitive sanctio[n]”).19 By contrast,

158, 648, whereupon duties would be assessed. Similarly, the forfeiture
imposed by the Act of Mar. 3, 1823, was for failing to deliver the ship’s
manifest of cargo––which was to list “merchandise subject to duty”––to
the collector of customs. See Act of Mar. 2, 1821, § 1, 3 Stat. 616; Act of
Mar. 3, 1823, § 1, id., at 781. And the “invoices” that if “false” gave rise
to the forfeiture imposed by the Act of Mar. 3, 1863, were to include the
value or quantity of any dutiable goods.

§ 1, 12 Stat. 737–738.

18 The nonpunitive nature of the monetary forfeitures was also reﬂected
in their procedure: like traditional in rem forfeitures, they were brought
as civil actions, and as such are distinguishable from the punitive criminal
ﬁne at issue here.
Instead of instituting an information of libel in rem
against the goods, see, e. g., Locke v. United States, 7 Cranch 339 (1813),
the Government ﬁled “a civil action of debt” against the person from whom
it sought payment. See, e. g., Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531,
In both England and the United States, an action of debt
541–542 (1871).
was used to recover import duties owed the Government, being “the gen-
eral remedy for the recovery of all sums certain, whether the legal liability
arise from contract, or be created by a statute. And the remedy as well
lies for the government itself, as for a citizen.” United States v. Lyman,
26 F. Cas. 1024, 1030 (No. 15,647) (CC Mass. 1818) (Story, C. J.). Thus
suits for the payment of monetary forfeitures were viewed no differently
than suits for the customs duties themselves.

19 One Lot Emerald Cut Stones differs from this case in the most funda-
mental respect. We concluded that the forfeiture provision in Emerald
Cut Stones was entirely remedial and thus nonpunitive, primarily because
it “provide[d] a reasonable form of liquidated damages” to the Govern-
ment.
409 U. S., at 237. The additional fact that such a remedial forfeit-
ure also “serves to reimburse the Government for investigation and en-
forcement expenses,” ibid.; see post, at 346, is essentially meaningless,
because even a clearly punitive criminal ﬁne or forfeiture could be said in
some measure to reimburse for criminal enforcement and investigation.
Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, this certainly does not mean that the
forfeiture in this case––which, as the dissent acknowledges, see post, at
344 (respondent’s forfeiture is a “ﬁne”); post, at 353 (§ 982(a)(1) imposes a