Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 379

524US2

Unit: $U89

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

334

UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN

Opinion of the Court

the excessiveness of a punitive forfeiture involves solely
a proportionality determination. See infra this page and
335–337.9

III

Because the forfeiture of respondent’s currency constitutes
punishment and is thus a “ﬁne” within the meaning of
the Excessive Fines Clause, we now turn to the question
whether it is “excessive.”

A

The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Ex-
cessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The
amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the
gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish. See
Austin v. United States, 509 U. S., at 622–623 (noting Court
of Appeals’ statement that “ ‘the government is exacting too
high a penalty in relation to the offense committed’ ”); Alex-
ander v. United States, 509 U. S. 544, 559 (1993) (“It is in
the light of the extensive criminal activities which petitioner
apparently conducted . . . that the question whether the for-
feiture was ‘excessive’ must be considered”). Until today,
however, we have not articulated a standard for determining
whether a punitive forfeiture is constitutionally excessive.
We now hold that a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive
Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of
a defendant’s offense.

9 The currency in question is not an instrumentality in any event. The
Court of Appeals reasoned that the existence of the currency as a “precon-
dition” to the reporting requirement did not make it an “instrumentality”
of the offense. See 84 F. 3d 334, 337 (CA9 1996). We agree; the currency
is merely the subject of the crime of failure to report. Cash in a suitcase
does not facilitate the commission of that crime as, for example, an auto-
mobile facilitates the transportation of goods concealed to avoid taxes.
See, e. g., J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, supra, at 508.
In the latter instance, the property is the actual means by which the crimi-
nal act is committed. See Black’s Law Dictionary 801 (6th ed. 1990) (“In-
strumentality” is “[s]omething by which an end is achieved; a means,
medium, agency”).