Opinion ID: 2657820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count Seven

Text: Although § 982(a)(2)(A) also could have applied to Count Seven, the Indictment sought forfeiture on this Count only pursuant to civil forfeiture provision 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which permits “a deduction from the forfeiture to the extent that the loan was repaid, or the debt was satisfied, without any financial loss to the victim.” Id. § 981(a)(2)(C). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a) states: “A court must not enter a judgment of forfeiture in a criminal proceeding unless the indictment . . . contains notice to the defendant that the government will seek the forfeiture of property as part of any sentence in accordance with the applicable statute.” (emphasis supplied). Pursuant to this Rule, a criminal defendant has the right 7 No. 12‐4988‐cv (L) to know not only that forfeiture is being sought, but also the statutory basis for forfeiture. With respect to Count Seven, the Government failed to state the criminal forfeiture provision in the Indictment, and did not correct this oversight prior to or during sentencing. At sentencing, the District Court did not specify that it was ordering forfeiture pursuant to the criminal forfeiture provision, but it nonetheless required Annabi to forfeit the full amount of the loan fraudulently obtained on the Patton Drive house, despite the fact that the loan had been repaid in full. Such forfeiture is permissible only under § 982(a)(2)(A), see note 4 ante, as “a form of punishment, separate and apart from any restitutive measures imposed during sentencing,” Peters, 732 F.3d at 98.5 We hold that where the Government fails to invoke an applicable forfeiture provision in the indictment, and fails to correct that error prior to entry of a final judgment, forfeiture must be limited to that authorized by the statute cited as the basis for 5 The Government relies on United States v. Silvious, 512 F.3d 364 (7th Cir. 2008), for the proposition that failure to state the correct forfeiture provision in an indictment is harmless where the defendant has notice that forfeiture is sought. The circumstances of that case are readily distinguishable. The defendant in Silvious had objected to a preliminary forfeiture order that relied on statutes not listed in the indictment, where the statute listed in the indictment was inapplicable to the circumstances presented. Id. at 369. Prior to the forfeiture hearing, the Government conceded that the statute charged was inapplicable, but argued that forfeiture was still appropriate under a different statute. Id. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the order of forfeiture, holding that the defendant had adequate notice of the corrected forfeiture statute, and that the forfeiture “was not broadened in any way by the substitution of the proper statute.” Id. In the instant case, by contrast, Annabi did not receive notice until appellate proceedings that the Government intended to rely upon the harsher criminal forfeiture provision. 8 No. 12‐4988‐cv (L) forfeiture, and of which the defendant had notice.6 Accordingly, Annabi’s forfeiture on Count Seven is limited to that authorized by § 981(a)(1)(c), which, by its express terms, entitles her to offset the amount of the loan on the Patton Drive house that she repaid at no loss to the bank.