Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 392.0

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

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

347

Kennedy, J., dissenting

double jeopardy, because the ﬁne “serves to reimburse the
Government for investigation and enforcement expenses.”
409 U. S., at 237. The logic, however, applies with equal
force here. Forfeiture of the money involved in the offense
would compensate for the investigative and enforcement ex-
penses of the Customs Service. There is no reason to treat
the cases differently, just because a small duty was at stake
in one and a disclosure form in the other. See Bollinger’s
Champagne, 3 Wall. 560, 564 (1866) (holding falsehoods on
customs forms justify forfeiture even if the lies do not affect
the duties due and paid). The majority, in short, is not even
faithful to its own artiﬁcial category of remedial penalties.

B

The majority’s novel holding creates another anomaly as
well. The majority suggests in rem forfeitures of the in-
strumentalities of crimes are not ﬁnes at all. See ante, at
333–334, and nn. 8, 9. The point of the instrumentality the-
ory is to distinguish goods having a “close enough relation-
ship to the offense” from those incidentally related to it.
Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, 628 (1993) (Scalia, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in judgment). From this,
the Court concludes the money in a cash-smuggling or nonre-
porting offense cannot be an instrumentality, unlike, say, a
car used to transport goods concealed from taxes. Ante, at
334, n. 9. There is little logic in this rationale. The car
plays an important role in the offense but is not essential;
one could also transport goods by jet or by foot. The link
between the cash and the cash-smuggling offense is closer,
as the offender must fail to report while smuggling more
than $10,000. See 31 U. S. C. §§ 5316(a), 5322(a). The cash
is not just incidentally related to the offense of cash smug-
gling.
It is essential, whereas the car is not. Yet the car
plays an important enough role to justify forfeiture, as the
majority concedes. A fortiori, the cash does as well. Even
if there were a clear distinction between instrumentalities