Opinion ID: 602414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forfeiture of Real Property

Text: 7 In this Circuit, it is well settled that real property is subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 1955. In 1990, sitting en banc, we reviewed precisely this question. See United States v. South Half of Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 14, 910 F.2d 488 (8th Cir.1990) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1389, 113 L.Ed.2d 445 (1991). The court concluded: 8 The tasks of resolving the dispute over the scope of section 1955(d)'s forfeiture provision begins with the language of the statute itself. When used without qualification, the word property includes both real and personal property within its sweep. Indeed, Congress's use of the word any to describe property undercuts a narrower construction. The language of the forfeiture provision is plain and clear: real property used in illegal gambling operations may be seized and forfeited. 9 Id. at 489 (citations omitted); accord, United States v. On Leong Chinese Merchant's Ass'n Bldg., 918 F.2d 1289, 1297 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 52, 116 L.Ed.2d 29 (1991); United States v. Premises and Real Property at 614 Portland Ave., 846 F.2d 166, 167 (2d Cir.1988) (per curium). We are bound by this decision and the Association's suggestion that a panel of the court might overrule an en banc holding is simply incorrect.