In United States v. Walked, No. 18-11951 (Aug. 11,
2020) (Martin, Grant, Lagoa), the Court reversed the denial of the
government’s forfeiture motion.
The Court held that, if a defendant is convicted of a money
laundering scheme that caused no financial harm to an innocently involved bank,
a forfeiture order is still mandatory. Applying
the mandatory forfeiture statute in 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(1), the Court concluded
that there was property “involved in” the scheme. The Court rejected the defendant’s arguments
that laundered money is not “property” under the statute, and that laundered
money could not be used to calculate his forfeiture obligation because the
money was returned to the bank as part of the scheme. Finally, the Court held that the district
court erred by holding that the Eighth Amendment imposed a $10,000 per transaction
ceiling, and the Court remanded for the district court to consider whether a $10 million
forfeiture award violated the Eighth Amendment.
Judge Lagoa concurred in part and dissented in part. She disagreed with a portion of the majority
opinion suggesting that the government was entitled to substitute asset
forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 853(p), as the government had not sought forfeiture
under that statute. And because the
district court had not yet made factual findings on the Eighth Amendment issue,
she would not opine on whether a $10,000 per transaction maximum was excessive.
