Source: https://www.johntfloyd.com/federal-forfeiture-statutes-take-another-hit/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:26:39+00:00

Document:
For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1345 permits a federal district court to freeze, before trial, certain assets of a defendant charged with either a federal banking or health care law violation. These assets include: 1) property ‘obtained as a result of” the crime; 2) property “traceable” to the crime; and 3) other “property of equivalent value” owned by the defendant.
28 U.S.C. § 853 provides for two types of forfeiture of assets upon conviction. First, § 853(a) permits forfeiture of three categories of “tainted” property (i.e., property directly linked to the offense of conviction) which includes: 1) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such [offense]; 2) any of the [defendant]’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such [offense]; and 3) in the case of a person convicted of or engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise[,] … any of his interest in, claims against, and property or contractual rights affording a source of control over, the continuing criminal enterprise.
Second, when any of the above-mentioned property has either diminished in value or is otherwise beyond the court’s reach, § 853(p) permits the forfeiture of “substitute property” (“untainted” property) that is equal in value to any of the property authorized for forfeiture under § 853(a).
During its last two terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings that significantly reduced the reach of these draconian statutes. In March 2016, the Court held in United States v. Luis that any “restraint on legitimate, untainted assets” under § 1345 needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment. And in June 2017, the Court restricted the reach of § 853(a) in United States v. Honeycutt to the “property the defendant himself acquired as a result of the crime”—eliminating the rule of joint and several liability to any co-conspirators in the crime.
Federal district courts, at the urging of Government prosecutors, have issued “pretrial restraint” orders under § 853((c)(1)(A) “to preserve the availability of property described in [§ 853(a)]” that “would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture.” The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, at odds with its sister circuits, has routinely extended the reach of § 853(c) to include both tainted [§ 853(a)] and untainted property [§ 853(p) substitute property] that has no direct relationship to the charged offense.
These judicial rulings curtailing the government’s ability to restrain untainted assets come at an opportune time when the current Justice Department led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions does not respect any distinction between tainted and untainted assets.

References: § 1345
 § 853
 § 853
 § 853
 § 853
 v. 
 § 1345
 § 853
 v. 
 § 853
 § 853