Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 394

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

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

349

Kennedy, J., dissenting

the entire $357,144. See 18 U. S. C. § 982(a)(1). The only
ground for reducing the forfeiture, then, is that any higher
amount would be unconstitutional. The majority afﬁrms the
reduced $15,000 forfeiture on de novo review, see ante, at
336–337, and n. 11, which it can do only if a forfeiture of
even $15,001 would have suffered from a gross disproportion.
Indeed, the majority leaves open whether the $15,000 forfeit-
ure itself was too great. See ante, at 337, n. 11. Money
launderers, among the principal targets of this statute, may
get an even greater return from their crime.

Ibid.

The majority does not explain why respondent’s knowing,
willful, serious crime deserves no higher penalty than
It gives only a cursory explanation of why forfeit-
$15,000.
ure of all of the money would have suffered from a gross
disproportion. The majority justiﬁes its evisceration of the
ﬁne because the money was legal to have and came from a
legal source. See ante, at 337–338. This fact, however,
shows only that the forfeiture was a ﬁne, not that it was
excessive. As the majority puts it, respondent’s money was
lawful to possess, was acquired in a lawful manner, and was
It was not, however, lawful to pos-
lawful to export.
sess the money while concealing and smuggling it. Even if
one overlooks this problem, the apparent lawfulness of the
money adds nothing to the argument.
If the items pos-
sessed had been dangerous or unlawful to own, for instance,
narcotics, the forfeiture would have been remedial and would
not have been a ﬁne at all. See Austin, supra, at 621; e. g.,
United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U. S.
354, 364 (1984) (unlicensed guns); Commonwealth v. Dana,
43 Mass. 329, 337 (1841) (forbidden lottery tickets).
If re-
spondent had acquired the money in an unlawful manner, it
would have been forfeitable as proceeds of the crime. As a
rule, forfeitures of criminal proceeds serve the nonpunitive
ends of making restitution to the rightful owners and of
compelling the surrender of property held without right or
ownership. See United States v. Ursery, 518 U. S. 267, 284