Source: https://www.johntfloyd.com/forfeiture-criminal-proceeds/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:24:41+00:00

Document:
In 2011, Blackman and a host of co-conspirators developed a scheme to rob Mark IV Transportation and Logistics, a transportation contractor for the electronics and software developer Apple. Blackman was on the lower end of the totem pole in the conspiracy—he served as a “fence” for those who actually robbed the transport trucks loaded with products designated for Apple distributors.
Blackman learned several things about the robbery business. First, he did not actually have to possess a weapon to be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) with carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The Pinkerton doctrine, which is based on a 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision, provides that a defendant is “liable for substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator when their commission is reasonably foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Lowers federal courts have interpreted the Pinkerton doctrine to mean that co-conspirators are agents of each other and the principal is bound by the acts of the other agents.
§ 981 generally applies only to civil forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 2461(c) covers criminal forfeiture. The Fourth Circuit said § 2461(c) serves as a “bridge” or “gap-filler” between civil and criminal forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture is authorized “when no criminal forfeiture provision applies to the crime charged against a particular defendant but civil forfeiture for that charged crime is nonetheless authorized.” Thus, § 2461(c), in conjunction with § 981, provides that a Federal district court “shall order” forfeiture in the amount of the criminal proceeds.
When the district court sentenced Blackman, the court imposed consecutive 36 and 84 month sentences as well as five years of supervised release. The court also ordered Blackman to pay restitution in the amount of $136,601.03. The court stipulated the restitution would be paid jointly and severally by all the defendants in the case. Lastly, the court rejected a request by the Government for a criminal forfeiture in the same amount.
On cross-appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the Government challenged the district court’s denial of forfeiture—a denial the district court based on “equitable considerations.” The appeals court found this reasoning by the trial court was in error, explaining: “Forfeiture is mandatory even when restitution is also imposed. These two aspects of a defendant’s sentence serve distinct purposes: restitution functions to compensate the victim, whereas forfeiture acts to punish the wrongdoer.
“Furthermore, the two remedies need not be at cross-purposes. Although it is not bound to do so, the government has the discretion to use forfeited assets to restore the victim whom the defendant has failed to compensate. The government’’ ability to collect on a judgment often far surpasses that of an untutored or impecunious victim of crime.
Blackman, the least conspirator involved in the Mark IV robbery conspiracy, was punished the most severely: longer prison term, his co-conspirators receiving benefits for testifying against him, and both restitution and forfeiture orders in the amount of $273,202.06—far more than he gained from the robberies.
But there are several significant points we need to make about forfeiture orders. The primary difference between civil and criminal forfeiture is that, unlike criminal forfeiture, the police and prosecutors through civil forfeiture can seize personal property without a finding of guilt by a court; in fact, with civil forfeiture, the police and prosecutors can seize an individual’s personal property (house, vehicle, equipment, etc.) without the individual even being charged with a crime. In many jurisdictions, law enforcement agencies use part of they booty to underwrite their budgets. Worse yet, civil forfeitures in Texas can be used to pay police salaries.
In 2010, the Institute of Justice, in a report titled Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture, said Texas has some of the worst civil forfeiture laws in the nation. Discussing the report, the IJ’s website said “Texas law establishes a trifecta of circumstances that invite forfeiture abuse.

References: § 924

§ 981
 § 2461
 § 2461
 § 2461
 § 981