United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, Charles Arlt James Wren Payback Mines, Claimants-Appellants

Bad Law
33 F.3d 1210·94 Daily Journal DAR 12590·1994 WL 476736·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 24048·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6837
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 6, 199493-55947California6,116 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

This case involves the constitutional limits on the government’s ability to seek criminal penalties and civil forfeiture based on the same violations of law. The government brought a criminal prosecution against the claimants at approximately the same time as it instituted this separate and parallel civil forfeiture action under 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6). The question is whether the government violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment by obtaining convictions in the criminal case and then continuing to pursue the forfeiture action. We answer the question in the affirmative and reverse the order of forfeiture.

I.

Claimants James Wren, Charles Arlt, and Payback Mines appeal pro se the forfeiture of their property following Wren and Arlt’s criminal convictions 6f various counts of conspiracy and money laundering. In the criminal case, Arlt, Wren, and several others had been accused of conducting a large-scale methamphetamine manufacturing operation. Through a series of front corporations, including Payback Mines, the defendants had sought to create the appearance that they were engaging in legitimate gold mining activities.

The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.