Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 399.0

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

354

UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN

Kennedy, J., dissenting

punished all cash smuggling or nonreporting, authorizing
single penalties for the offense alone and double penalties for
the offense coupled with proof of other crimes. See 31
U. S. C. §§ 5322(a), (b). The requirement of willfulness, it
judged, would be enough to protect the innocent. See ibid.
The majority second-guesses this judgment without explain-
ing why Congress’ blanket approach was unreasonable.

Money launderers will rejoice to know they face forfeit-
ures of less than 5% of the money transported, provided they
hire accomplished liars to carry their money for them. Five
percent, of course, is not much of a deterrent or punishment;
it is comparable to the fee one might pay for a mortgage
lender or broker. Cf. 15 U. S. C. § 1602(aa)(1)(B) (high-cost
mortgages cost more than 8% in points and fees).
It is far
less than the 20%–26% commissions some drug dealers pay
money launderers. See Hearing on Money Laundering and
the Drug Trade before the Subcommittee on Crime of the
House Judiciary Committee, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., 62 (1997)
(testimony of M. Zeldin); Andelman, The Drug Money Maze,
73 Foreign Affairs 108 (July/Aug. 1994). Since many couri-
ers evade detection, moreover, the average forfeiture per
dollar smuggled could amount, courtesy of today’s decision,
to far less than 5%.
In any event, the ﬁne permitted by
the majority would be a modest cost of doing business in
the world of drugs and crime. See US/Mexico Bi-National
Drug Threat Assessment 84 (Feb. 1997) (to drug dealers,
transaction costs of 13%–15% are insigniﬁcant compared to
their enormous proﬁt margins).

Given the severity of respondent’s crime, the Constitution
does not forbid forfeiture of all of the smuggled or unre-
ported cash. Congress made a considered judgment in set-
ting the penalty, and the Court is in serious error to set
it aside.

III

The Court’s holding may in the long run undermine the
purpose of the Excessive Fines Clause. One of the main