Opinion ID: 3008737
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forfeiture Judgment

Text: Defendants next dispute the amount of the forfeiture judgment based on the same arguments addressed above. “Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of” or conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 666, among other crimes, is subject to forfeiture. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) (incorporating 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)). The Government concedes that this is a case involving lawful services provided in an illegal matter, and therefore “the term ‘proceeds’ means the amount of money acquired through the illegal transactions resulting in the forfeiture, less the direct costs incurred in providing the goods or services.” 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2)(B). While the Government bears the burden to prove the amount of money acquired through the illegal transactions, Defendants bear the burden of proof “with respect to the issue of direct costs.” Id.; see also United States v. Mandell, 752 F.3d 544, 553-54 (2d. Cir. 2014). Defendants do not dispute that the district court’s calculation of the forfeiture amount accurately represents the amount of money acquired through the illegal transactions. Rather, 4 Clouse testified that Halbert volunteered for the city every day but did not know her precise hours. -12- Nos. 14-6555/6556, United States v. Whicker, et al. Defendants contend only that Halbert performed the work for which she was paid. Similar to the district court’s loss calculation, because Defendants failed to show the value of any direct costs incurred in providing the services, the district court did not clearly err in declining to reduce the amount of the forfeiture judgment.