Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 386.0

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

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

341

Opinion of the Court

nothing about the proportionality of the punitive forfeiture
at issue here. See supra, at 330–332.16

Other statutes, however, imposed monetary “forfeitures”
proportioned to the value of the goods involved. See, e. g.,
Act of July 31, 1789, § 22, 1 Stat. 42 (if an importer, “with
design to defraud the revenue,” did not invoice his goods at
their actual cost at the place of export, “all such goods, wares
or merchandise, or the value thereof . . . shall be forfeited”);
§ 25, id., at 43 (any person concealing or purchasing goods,
knowing they were liable to seizure for violation of the cus-
toms laws, was liable to “forfeit and pay a sum double the
value of the goods so concealed or purchased”); see also Act
of Aug. 4, 1790, §§ 10, 14, 22, id., at 156, 158, 161. Similar
statutes were passed in later Congresses. See, e. g., Act of
Mar. 2, 1799, §§ 24, 28, 45, 46, 66, 69, 79, 84, id., at 646, 648,
661, 662, 677, 678, 687, 694; Act of Mar. 3, 1823, ch. 58, § 1, 3
Stat. 781.

These “forfeitures” were similarly not considered punish-
ments for criminal offenses. This Court so recognized in
Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531 (1871), a case inter-
preting a statute that, like the Act of July 31, 1789, provided
that a person who had concealed goods liable to seizure for
customs violations should “forfeit and pay a sum double the
amount or value of the goods.” Act of Mar. 3, 1823, ch. 58,
§ 2, 3 Stat. 781–782. The Stockwell Court rejected the de-

16 The nonpunitive nature of these early forfeitures was not lost on the
Department of Justice, in commenting on the punitive forfeiture provisions
of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970:

“ ‘The concept of forfeiture as a criminal penalty which is embodied in
this provision differs from other presently existing forfeiture provisions
under Federal statutes where the proceeding is in rem against the prop-
erty and the thing which is declared unlawful under the statute, or which
is used for an unlawful purpose, or in connection with the prohibited prop-
erty or transaction, is considered the offender, and the forfeiture is no
part of the punishment for the criminal offense. Examples of such for-
feiture provisions are those contained in the customs, narcotics, and reve-
nue laws.’ ” S. Rep. No. 91–617, p. 79 (1969) (emphasis added).