United States v. Bajakajian

524 U.S. 321 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D attempted to leave the United States without reporting, as required by federal law, that he was transporting more than $10,000 in currency. Federal law provides that a person convicted of willfully violating this reporting requirement shall forfeit to the Government 'any property ... involved in such offense.' 18 U. S. C. § 982(a)(1). D was waiting at Los Angeles International Airport to board a flight to Italy; their final destination was Cyprus. Currency dogs were alerted, and eventually, customs inspectors found $357,144. The currency was seized, and D was taken into custody. The District Court found that the entire $357,144 was subject to forfeiture because it was 'involved in' the offense. It also found that D was transporting the money to repay a lawful debt. The court found that D had failed to report that he was taking the currency out of the United States because of fear stemming from 'cultural differences.' Although § 982(a)(1) directs sentencing courts to impose full forfeiture, the District Court concluded that such forfeiture would be 'extraordinarily harsh' and 'grossly disproportionate to the offense in question,' and that it would, therefore, violate the Excessive Fines Clause. The court instead ordered forfeiture of $15,000, in addition to a sentence of three years of probation and a fine of $5,000-the maximum fine under the Sentencing Guidelines. P appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that to satisfy the Excessive Fines Clause, a forfeiture must fulfill two conditions: The property forfeited must be an 'instrumentality' of the crime committed, and the value of the property must be proportional to the culpability of the owner. Although the panel majority concluded that the Excessive Fines Clause did not permit forfeiture of any of the unreported currency, it held that it lacked jurisdiction to set the $15,000 forfeiture aside because D had not cross-appealed to challenge that forfeiture.