Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 397.0

524US2

Unit: $U89

[09-11-00 13:24:47] PAGES PGT: OPIN

352

UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN

Kennedy, J., dissenting

§ 982(a)(1).
It is common practice, of course, for a cash cou-
rier not to confess a tainted source but to stick to a well-
rehearsed story. The kingpin, the real owner, need not
come forward to make a legal claim to the funds. He has
his own effective enforcement measures to ensure delivery
at destination or return at origin if the scheme is thwarted.
He is, of course, not above punishing the courier who devi-
ates from the story and informs. The majority is wrong,
then, to assume in personam forfeitures cannot affect king-
pins, as their couriers will claim to own the money and pay
the penalty out of their masters’ funds. See ante, at 328,
n. 3. Even if the courier confessed, the kingpin could face
an in personam forfeiture for his agent’s authorized acts, for
the kingpin would be a co-principal in the commission of the
crime. See 18 U. S. C. § 2.

In my view, forfeiture of all the unreported currency is
sustainable whenever a willful violation is proved. The
facts of this case exemplify how hard it can be to prove own-
ership and other crimes, and they also show respondent is
far from an innocent victim. For one thing, he was guilty
of repeated lies to Government agents and suborning lies by
others. Customs inspectors told respondent of his duty to
report cash. He and his wife claimed they had only $15,000
with them, not the $357,144 they in fact had concealed. He
then told customs inspectors a friend named Abe Ajemian
had lent him about $200,000. Ajemian denied this. A
month later, respondent said Saeed Faroutan had lent him
$170,000. Faroutan, however, said he had not made the loan
and respondent had asked him to lie. Six months later, re-
spondent resurrected the fable of the alleged loan from
Ajemian, though Ajemian had already contradicted the
story. As the District Court found, respondent “has lied,
and has had his friends lie.” Tr. 54 (Jan. 19, 1995). He had
proffered a “suspicious and confused story, documented in
the poorest way, and replete with past misrepresentation.”
Id., at 61–62.