Money Judgment in Criminal Asset Forfeiture Cases

In a criminal asset forfeiture case, a forfeiture order may be sought as a money judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A), (2)(A). In fact, in United States v. Nejad, 933 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 2019), the court concluded, “we see nothing in Honeycutt (or any other recent Supreme Court decision) that would allow us to overrule our prior precedent permitting entry of a personal money judgment . . . .”).

In United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777, 792-94 (9th Cir. 2016), the court upheld a forfeiture money judgment in the amount the defendant received from mail and wire fraud offenses.

Forfeiture statutes “mandate[] that a defendant forfeit a very specific amount—the proceeds of his criminal activity,” which can be in the form of a money judgment. United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006).

The requirement that the court enter a money judgment is required regardless of the defendant’s ability to satisfy the judgment at the time of sentencing. Id. at 1074 (“imposition of a money judgment on a defendant” who cannot currently satisfy it “furthers the remedial purposes of the forfeiture statute” because it requires the defendant to “disgorge their ill-gotten gains, even those already spent”).

The court, and not the jury, determines the appropriate amount of a forfeiture money judgment. In United States v. Daniel, 676 F. App’x 675, 678 (9th Cir. 2017), the court found that the defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to a jury determination on the forfeiture money judgment.

The court’s determination that a money judgment is appropriate is “based on evidence already in the record, including any written plea agreement, and any additional evidence or information submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as relevant and reliable.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B).

The Amount of the Money Judgment

A jury may only determine the forfeitability of specific property, not the amount of a money judgment. See Fed. R. Grim. P. 32.2(b)(5).

In advance of sentencing the court must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture (POF) “setting forth the amount of any money judgment.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A). The POF is not a final order but a preliminary one, which will allow the parties ample time to seek to revise or modify the order before it becomes final. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(B) (“[T]he court must enter the preliminary order sufficiently in advance of sentencing to allow the parties to suggest revisions or modifications before the order becomes final as to the defendant under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4).”).

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(1) specifically states that “no ancillary proceeding is required to the extent that the forfeiture consists of a money judgment.

As the Ninth Circuit explained in Nejad, “once the government identifies untainted property that it believes may be used to satisfy a personal money judgment, it must return to the district court and establish that the requirements of § 853(p) have been met.” Pizzuto v. Blades, 933 F.3d 1166, 1166 (9th Cir. 2019).

The showing that the requirements of § 853(p) have been met has no bearing on what the government currently seeks as there has been no identification of substitute property it seeks to use to enforce the forfeiture judgment it requests. Instead, the government might simply asks for the preliminary forfeiture judgment in a sum certain. If the government wish to take possession for purposes of forfeiture of property unlisted in the jury’s special verdict form, it would be subject to additional proceedings.

The money judgment must be reduced by the amount the government recoups through the sale of property identified as forfeitable in the jury’s special verdict. If the Court allows substitute properties to be seized in the future, the market value of those properties must also be credited against the potential money judgement.

As a result, once the specific properties listed in the forfeiture order are sold, the proceeds of those sales will be credited against the personal money judgment. The credit applies when the properties have been sold.

In United States v. Teves, 621 F. App’x 486, 487-88 (9th Cir. 2015), the court found no authority to offset amount of money judgment by the value of seized property before it is sold.

This article was last updated on Monday, July 20, 2026.