Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 385.0

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

340

UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN

Opinion of the Court

gravity of his offense.15
It is larger than the $5,000 ﬁne im-
posed by the District Court by many orders of magnitude,
and it bears no articulable correlation to any injury suffered
by the Government.

C

Finally, we must reject the contention that the proportion-
ality of full forfeiture is demonstrated by the fact that the
First Congress enacted statutes requiring full forfeiture of
goods involved in customs offenses or the payment of mone-
tary penalties proportioned to the goods’ value.
It is argued
that the enactment of these statutes at roughly the same
time that the Eighth Amendment was ratiﬁed suggests that
full forfeiture, in the customs context at least, is a propor-
tional punishment. The early customs statutes, however, do
not support such a conclusion because, unlike § 982(a)(1), the
type of forfeiture that they imposed was not considered pun-
ishment for a criminal offense.

Certain of the early customs statutes required the forfeit-
ure of goods imported in violation of the customs laws, and,
in some instances, the vessels carrying them as well. See,
e. g., Act of Aug. 4, 1790, § 27, 1 Stat. 163 (goods unladen
without a permit from the collector). These forfeitures,
however, were civil in rem forfeitures, in which the Govern-
ment proceeded against the property itself on the theory
that it was guilty, not against a criminal defendant. See,
e. g., Harford v. United States, 8 Cranch 109 (1814) (goods
unladen without a permit); Locke v. United States, 7 Cranch
339, 340 (1813) (same). Such forfeitures sought to vindicate
the Government’s underlying property right in customs du-
ties, and like other traditional in rem forfeitures, they were
not considered at the founding to be punishment for an
offense. See supra, at 330–331. They therefore indicate

15 Respondent does not argue that his wealth or income are relevant to
the proportionality determination or that full forfeiture would deprive him
of his livelihood, see supra, at 335–336, and the District Court made no
factual ﬁndings in this respect.