Opinion ID: 563814
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence for Forfeiture of Property Listed

Text: 29 in Order of Forfeiture 30 Puma's last contention is that there was insufficient evidence to support the order of forfeiture of numerous automobiles and equipment. Puma argues that there was evidence that the vehicles were legitimately and legally bought without involvement of the proceeds of a criminal enterprise; they should not be forfeited because they do not fall[ ] within the special verdict forfeiting 'Diamond Oaks Motor Company'. 31 There was ample evidence presented to the jury that the Diamond Oaks Motor Company was both derived from the proceeds of a criminal enterprise and afforded Puma control over a criminal enterprise. This evidence included physical evidence and testimony that the business was used to store amphetamine; testimony that the business was intended by Puma to be a front for amphetamine trafficking; and evidence that Puma's legitimate income was not large enough to cover the cost of purchasing the business. 32 Puma seems to be arguing that individual items belonging to the company were not involved in a criminal enterprise and that, therefore, those assets should not be forfeited. This is not the law. If the motor company was forfeitable, then all the individual assets of the company were also forfeitable, without any proof that each individual asset had been used in, or purchased by the proceeds of, a criminal enterprise. Cauble, 706 F.2d at 1349. See also Tunnell, 667 F.2d at 1188 (jury's special verdict need not identify which rooms of hotel were used in criminal enterprise for whole hotel to be forfeit); Possick, 849 F.2d at 341.