Originally from Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States, Third Edition
§ 19-1 Overview
[...] This chapter begins by discussing the reasons for entering an order of forfeiture prior to sentencing and the rules governing when the order should be entered. It then discusses the various forms that the order may take: a listing of specific property that is directly traceable to the offense, a judgment for a sum of money, a list of substitute assets, or a generic description of the forfeited property that will be amended once the court has the opportunity to consider the forfeiture issues in a post-sentencing hearing, or as specific property is identified in post-conviction discovery.
Much of the litigation in this area concerns the court’s authority to enter the forfeiture order in the form of a personal money judgment when the property directly traceable to the defendant’s offense is no longer in his possession. Accordingly, the chapter goes into some detail regarding the history of forfeiture money judgments and the source of the court’s authority to issue a forfeiture order in that form. Then it turns to the controversy created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Honeycutt v. United States as to whether the defendants in multi-defendant cases may be held jointly and severally liable for the amount of the money judgment, or whether each defendant is liable only for the value of the property that he or she personally obtained.
Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the tools available to the court to protect the Government’s interest in the forfeited property before the Government is able to take the property into its possession.
Stefan D. Cassella, as a federal prosecutor, was one of the federal government's leading experts on asset forfeiture law for over thirty years, and now serves as an expert witness and consultant to law enforcement agencies and the financial sector as the CEO of AssetForfeitureLaw, LLC.