Opinion ID: 2657821
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Forfeiture Orders (Counts One through Six)

Text: The Indictment sought forfeiture to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461, of all property, real and personal, “that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to” the commission of the offenses alleged in Counts One through Six. 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). At sentencing the District Court ordered forfeiture of $209,501.99 as the amount of proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the violations charged in Counts One through Six, for which both defendants were jointly and severally liable. Defendants challenge these forfeiture orders on statutory and constitutional grounds. 7 On appeal from a forfeiture award, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32, 47 (2d Cir. 2011). The Government must prove facts supporting forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 48. Annabi argues that the $209,501.99 forfeiture order, in connection with Counts One through Six, is excessive because the jury did not find that all benefits conferred on Annabi by Jereis were corrupt, i.e. for the purpose of obtaining her vote. Specifically, Annabi argues that $119,586.96 was given to her between 2002-2005, well before any allegation that Jereis had requested official action, and $21,829 was given to her between 2007-2008, well after any charged official action. Finally, Annabi argues that $60,000 was lent to her by Jereis in the form of a promissory note, which she repaid, and is not properly included in the forfeiture amount. Count One of the Indictment charged a corrupt conspiracy from 2002 to 2009, and the jury convicted on that and related counts. The fact that there was not a direct connection between each payment and an official act by Annabi does not place the payments beyond the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which authorizes forfeiture of all proceeds traceable to the conspiracy. In convicting on the charges in the Indictment, the jury rejected the defense’s alternate explanation for the payments from Jereis and, in so doing, implicitly found that the payments, including loans, were, at least in part, a result of (and therefore traceable to) a corrupt agreement. See also Sentencing Transcript, Annabi App’x 1495 (“[T]he minute you[, Annabi,] started to take his money and to do it secretly, by failing to notify your constituents . . . you opened yourself up to the possibility that he would someday ask you to do a favor [and] you would have to do it.”).8 Jereis argues that he should not be held liable for the $174,501.99 that he paid Annabi for her benefit, and no longer possesses. We have explained that “a court may order a defendant to forfeit proceeds received by others who participated jointly in the crime, provided the actions 7 Insofar as defendants’ argue that the forfeiture orders were so disproportional to the gravity of the offenses as to be unconstitutional, that argument is without merit. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 336-37 (1998) (discussing standard for finding forfeiture excessive within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment). 8 The Government argues, and defendants do not dispute, that this is a case of “illegal services [and] unlawful activities” and, accordingly “the term ‘proceeds’ means property of any kind obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of the commission of the offense giving rise to forfeiture, and any property traceable thereto, and is not limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2)(A) (emphasis supplied). Therefore, the fact that the $60,000 loan was repaid does not place it beyond the scope of § 981(a)(1)(B). 6 generating those proceeds were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.” United States v. Contorinis, 692 F.3d 136, 147 (2d Cir. 2012). Because Jereis himself was responsible for generating the unlawful proceeds, there is no question that the actions were foreseeable to him. Accordingly, Jereis was properly held jointly liable for forfeiture of the bribes he paid to Annabi.9 The District Court did not err in entering the forfeiture order on Counts One through Six, holding defendants jointly and severally liable, as co-conspirators, for $209,501.99.