![]() ![]() After the jury rejected this evidence and the property was forfeited, the court conducted an ancillary proceeding in which the same witnesses litigated their claims to the same property. 1996), the court allowed the defendant to call witnesses to attempt to establish that they, not he, were the true owners of the property. ![]() ![]() There is no longer any reason to delay the conclusion of the criminal trial with a lengthy hearing over the extent of the defendant’s interest in property when the same issues will have to be litigated a second time in the ancillary proceeding if someone files a claim challenging the forfeiture. Since the enactment of the ancillary proceeding statutes, the requirement in Ruleģ1 (e) that the court (or jury) determine the extent of the defendant’s interest in the property as part of the criminal trial has become an unnecessary anachronism that leads more often than not to duplication and a waste of judicial resources. June 20, 1996) (once third party fails to file a claim in the ancillary proceeding, government has clear title under § 853(n)(7) and can market the property notwithstanding third party’s name on the deed). If no one files a claim, or if all claims are denied following a hearing, the forfeiture becomes final and the United States is deemed to have clear title to the property. 1996) (discussing steps taken by government to provide notice of criminal forfeiture to third parties). (In re Petition of Indosuez Bank), 916 F. Notice is published and sent to third parties that have a potential interest. 1996) (civil notice rules apply to ancillary criminal proceedings). The notice provisions regarding the ancillary proceeding are equivalent to the notice provisions that govern civil forfeitures. 1996) (court may amend order of forfeiture at any time to include substitute assets). ![]() 1994) (Moffitt I) (indictment need not list each asset subject to forfeiture under Ruleħ (c), this can be done with bill of particulars) United States v. 1997) (it is not necessary to specify in either the indictment or a bill of particulars that the government is seeking forfeiture of a particular asset, such as the defendant’s salary to comply with Ruleħ (c), the government need only put the defendant on notice that it will seek to forfeit everything subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute, such as all property “acquired or maintained” as a result of a RICO violation). It does not require a substantive allegation in which the property subject to forfeiture, or the defendant’s interest in the property, must be described in detail. The subdivision reflects the trend in caselaw interpreting present Ruleħ (c) sets forth a requirement that the government give the defendant notice that it will be seeking forfeiture in accordance with the applicable statute. As courts have held, subdivision (a) is not intended to require that an itemized list of the property to be forfeited appear in the indictment or information itself. Subdivision (a) is derived from Ruleħ (c)(2) which provides that notwithstanding statutory authority for the forfeiture of property following a criminal conviction, no forfeiture order may be entered unless the defendant was given notice of the forfeiture in the indictment or information. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |