Opinion ID: 36859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Supreme Court's Excessiveness Standard From Bajakajian

Text: 8 The defendant in Bajakajian attempted to carry more than $350,000 out of the United States without reporting the currency as required by federal law for amounts over $10,000. Bajakajian, 118 S.Ct. at 2031; 31 U.S.C. § 5316(a). Federal law also requires a sentencing court to order forfeiture of any property involved in a violation of the reporting requirement. Bajakajian, 118 S.Ct. at 2032; 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1). The maximum fine under the Sentencing Guidelines for the defendant's reporting offense was $5000. Bajakajian, 118 S.Ct. at 2032. The Supreme Court held that forfeiture of the entire $357,144 involved would violate the Excessive Fines Clause. Id. at 2029-30. 9 More generally, the Court held that a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense. Id. at 2036. In arriving at the grossly disproportional standard, the Court found two considerations particularly relevant: 1) that judgments about the appropriate punishment for an offense belong in the first instance to the legislature, and 2) that any judicial determination regarding the gravity of a particular criminal offense will be inherently imprecise. Id. at 2037. The Court noted that [b]oth of these principles counsel against requiring strict proportionality between the amount of a punitive forfeiture and the gravity of a criminal offense. Id. 10 With respect to the defendant's currency reporting violation, the Court stated that the crime was solely a reporting offense, and that because the defendant was not found to have been involved in other illegal activities such as drug trafficking, money laundering, or tax evasion, he did not fit into the class of persons for whom the statute was principally designed. Id. at 2038. The Court noted that the maximum fine of $5000 under the Sentencing Guidelines, while the statutory maximum fine was $250,000, confirm[ed] a minimal level of culpability. Id. & n. 14. Furthermore, the Court stated that the harm caused by the defendant's violation was minimal, asserting that only the government was affected, and in a relatively minor way, by the failure to report the currency. Id. at 2039. 11 After Bajakajian, the Eleventh Circuit has attempted to translat[e] the gravity of a crime into monetary terms. United States v. 817 N.E. 29th Drive, 175 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir.1999). Noting the Supreme Court's consideration in Bajakajian giving deference to judgments of the legislature on punishment, the Eleventh Circuit stated that if the value of the forfeited property is within the range of fines prescribed by Congress, a strong presumption arises that the forfeiture is constitutional. Id. The court went on to say that if the value of the property forfeited is within or near the permissible range of fines under the sentencing guidelines, the forfeiture almost certainly is not excessive. Id. at 1310. The district court referred to these Eleventh Circuit statements at the bench trial on forfeiture of Wallace's airplane. 12