Opinion ID: 3063901
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Battle, Jr.’s Forfeiture Order

Text: In support of its verdict of guilty of conspiracy to commit racketeering, the jury found that Battle, Jr. committed eight predicate acts of money laundering, along with numerous predicate acts of, inter alia, gambling and conspiracy to 36 commit money laundering. At the hearing on the issue of forfeiture, Detective David Shanks testified to his review of the evidence that the government demonstrated at trial the amount of money collected by the Corporation during various parts of the RICO conspiracy. He stated that in the time period from 1979 until 1980, the Corporation’s gambling operations generated an average of $175,000 per week and that during the period from 1981 until 1988, it generated an average of $1.5 million per week. Battle, Jr. was a leader of the Corporation’s gambling operations and until 1989, received a share of the gambling proceeds. We also note that the jury entered a special verdict finding that the Corporation’s racketeering activities generated $1.4 billion in proceeds. “We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding forfeiture and the court’s findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229, 1278 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotations omitted), petition for cert. filed U.S. March 17, 2008 ) (No. 07- 1190). “Whether a forfeiture order is constitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment is also subject to de novo review.” Browne, 505 F.3d at 1278. An individual who violates § 1962 “shall forfeit to the United States . . . (1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of [§] 1962 . . . and . . . (3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person 37 obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of [§] 1962.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 1963(a)(1) and (3). “Forfeitures are subject to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines ‘if they constitute punishment for an offense[,]’” and “[s]ubject forfeitures violate the Excessive Fines Clause if they are ‘grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.’” Brown, 505 F.3d at 1281 (quoting United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 328, 337, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 2033, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998)). “This, in turn, is determined by examining three factors: (1) whether the defendant falls into the class of persons at whom the criminal statute was principally directed; (2) other penalties authorized by the legislature (or the Sentencing Commission); and (3) the harm caused by the defendant.” Browne, 505 F.3d at 1281 (summarizing Bajakajian). As to these factors, Battle is “precisely the type of person toward whom RICO is principally directed . . .” because he committed racketeering activities, as the contemplated by the foreiture statute. Browne, 505 F.3d at 1282. Moreover, as to the second factor, the maximum sentence that could have been imposed was 20 years imprisonment, and the maximum fine was twice the amount of gross gain that Battle derived from the RICO enterprise. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1963(a), 3571 (d). Unlike Bajakajian, these penalties suggest a significant level of culpability. See 38 524 U.S. at 338, 118 S.Ct. at 2038; see also Browne, 505 F.3d at 1282 (That Congress authorized a maximum fine of $250,000 and 20 years' imprisonment each for Counts 1 and 2 further underscores that it viewed such violations as serious transgressions.). Turning to the third factor, the harm caused by Battle, Jr.'s involvement in this RICO enterprise was also significant. The jury found that he committed eight separate acts of money laundering, and this Court has observed that [e]ach unlawful monetary transaction harms society by impeding law enforcement's efforts to track ill-gotten gains. United States v. Martin, 320 F.3d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2003). The laundered funds were derived from illegal gambling operations, which involved numerous acts of violence targeted at rival businesses; Battle, Jr. was in a leadership position at the time such violent acts were committed and approved payments for such acts from the UNESCO account. In sum, we find that the forfeiture order, albeit a huge sum, was not grossly disproportionate to the RICO offense, which at one point generated $1.5 to $2 million per week in gambling proceeds, and which involved acts of violence to protect gambling operations and acts of money laundering to conceal the unlawful funds derived therefrom. The court’s $642 million forfeiture order was not grossly disproportionate to Battle’s RICO offense. Therefore, we affirm. 39 SENTENCES AND FORFEITURE ORDER AFFIRMED. 40