Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 374

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

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

329

Opinion of the Court

The United States argues, however, that the forfeiture of
currency under § 982(a)(1) “also serves important remedial
purposes.” Brief for United States 20. The Government
asserts that it has “an overriding sovereign interest in con-
trolling what property leaves and enters the country.”
Ibid.
It claims that full forfeiture of unreported currency supports
that interest by serving to “dete[r] illicit movements of cash”
and aiding in providing the Government with “valuable in-
formation to investigate and detect criminal activities associ-
ated with that cash.”
Id., at 21. Deterrence, however, has
traditionally been viewed as a goal of punishment, and
forfeiture of the currency here does not serve the remedial
purpose of compensating the Government for a loss. See
Black’s Law Dictionary 1293 (6th ed. 1990) (“[R]emedial ac-
tion” is one “brought to obtain compensation or indemnity”);
One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U. S.
232 (1972) (per curiam) (monetary penalty provides “a rea-
sonable form of liquidated damages,” id., at 237, to the
Government and is thus a “remedial” sanction because it
compensates Government for lost revenues). Although the
Government has asserted a loss of information regarding the
amount of currency leaving the country, that loss would not
be remedied by the Government’s conﬁscation of respond-
ent’s $357,144.4

The United States also argues that the forfeiture man-
dated by § 982(a)(1) is constitutional because it falls within a
class of historic forfeitures of property tainted by crime.
See Brief for United States 16 (citing, inter alia, The Pal-

4 We do not suggest that merely because the forfeiture of respondent’s
currency in this case would not serve a remedial purpose, other forfeitures
may be classiﬁed as nonpunitive (and thus not “ﬁnes”) if they serve some
remedial purpose as well as being punishment for an offense. Even if the
Government were correct in claiming that the forfeiture of respondent’s
currency is remedial in some way, the forfeiture would still be punitive in
part.
(The Government concedes as much.) This is sufﬁcient to bring
the forfeiture within the purview of the Excessive Fines Clause. See
Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, 621–622 (1993).