United States v. 874 Gartel Drive

concurring:

I join the Per Curiam opinion and offer these additional comments solely to express concern over what may be a particularly troublesome Eighth Amendment issue lurking in this case. The Amendment provides:

At jeopardy on remand is the money the Beltrans used to purchase the defendant property.

When the district court addresses this issue upon remand, it should consider the factors set forth in United States v. Real Property Located in El Dorado County, 59 F.3d 974 (9th Cir.1995). In El Dorada, we held that in order to survive an Excessive Fines challenge the property must, inter alia, have “a close ... relationship to the offense.” Id. at 982 . Based on the government’s characterization at oral argument of the husband Appellant as a convicted “drug trafficker” and “drug dealer,” I am concerned about the relationship of this forfeiture proceeding to the stated underlying offense.

Forfeiture is strong medicine. If the government’s decision to initiate and prosecute an in rem forfeiture, ostensibly for illegal structuring or exaggeration of income in a loan application, were actually influenced in whole or in part by a property owner’s drug trafficking experience, then…

Isidro and Josefina Beltran appeal an order forfeiting their property under 18 U.S.C. § 981 . The government brought the forfeiture action alleging that the Beltrans’ property was involved in, or was traceable to, a transaction that violated 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313 (a) and 5324(a). See 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A). It is illegal under 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (a)(3) to structure, or assist in structuring, any transaction for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313 (a). Section 5313(a), when augmented by the Treasury Secretary’s regulation, requires financial institutions to report payment or receipt of currency of more than $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service.

The government also argued that the Bel-trans’ property was subject to forfeiture because the proceeds of its purchase stemmed from a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 . See 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(1)(C). It is illegal under section 1014 to knowingly make false statements to a federally insured institution for the purpose of influencing the action of that institution.

*921 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, and ordered the property forfeited. The owners as claimants have appealed.…