Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 382

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

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

337

Opinion of the Court

of the forfeiture to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.
If
the amount of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the
gravity of the defendant’s offense, it is unconstitutional.

B

Under this standard, the forfeiture of respondent’s entire
$357,144 would violate the Excessive Fines Clause.11 Re-
spondent’s crime was solely a reporting offense.
It was per-
missible to transport the currency out of the country so long
as he reported it. Section 982(a)(1) orders currency to be
forfeited for a “willful” violation of the reporting require-
ment. Thus, the essence of respondent’s crime is a willful
failure to report the removal of currency from the United
States.12 Furthermore, as the District Court found, re-

siveness inquiry, of course, must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.
See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 574–575 (1985). But the
question whether a ﬁne is constitutionally excessive calls for the applica-
tion of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and in
this context de novo review of that question is appropriate. See Ornelas
v. United States, 517 U. S. 690, 697 (1996).

11 The only question before this Court is whether the full forfeiture of
respondent’s $357,144 as directed by § 982(a)(1) is constitutional under the
Excessive Fines Clause. We hold that it is not. The Government peti-
tioned for certiorari seeking full forfeiture, and we reject that request.
Our holding that full forfeiture would be excessive reﬂects no judgment
that “a forfeiture of even $15,001 would have suffered from a gross dispro-
portion,” nor does it “afﬁr[m] the reduced $15,000 forfeiture on de novo
review.” Post, at 349. Those issues are simply not before us. Nor, in-
deed, do we address in any respect the validity of the forfeiture ordered
by the District Court, including whether a court may disregard the terms
of a statute that commands full forfeiture: As noted, supra, at 327, re-
spondent did not cross-appeal the $15,000 forfeiture ordered by the Dis-
trict Court. The Court of Appeals thus declined to address the $15,000
forfeiture, and that question is not properly presented here either.

12 Contrary to the dissent’s contention, the nature of the nonreporting
offense in this case was not altered by respondent’s “lies” or by the “suspi-
cious circumstances” surrounding his transportation of his currency. See
post, at 352–353. A single willful failure to declare the currency consti-
tutes the crime, the gravity of which is not exacerbated or mitigated by