Stefan D Cassella

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure in 2011: An Annual Survey of Developments in the Case Law

Stefan D. Cassella — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:38:48 PST

This is another in a series of articles on developments in the federal case law relating to criminal forfeiture procedure. It covers the cases decided in 2010. Like the earlier articles in this series, this one does not attempt to discuss every topic related to criminal forfeiture, but covers those matters on which there was a significant development in the case law in the past year, or a significant change in the rules or statutes governing criminal forfeiture procedure.

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure in 2010: An Annual Survey of Developments in the Case Law

Stefan D. Cassella — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:51:17 PDT

This article is the latest in a series of annual surveys of developments in the case law regarding federal criminal forfeiture procedure. It covers cases decided in 2009 and changes to Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that took effect in 2009.

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure in 2009: A Survey of Developments in the Case Law

Stefan D. Cassella — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:22:51 PDT

This article collects all of the cases decided in the past year dealing with the procedure for incorporating asset forfeiture in a federal criminal case, including the order of forfeiture in the defendant's sentence, and resolving the claims of third parties.

United States v. Santos: The U.S. Supreme Court Rewrites the Money Laundering Statute

Stefan D. Cassella — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:37:57 PST

The United States Supreme Court has upset decades of money laundering case law, by construing the term “proceeds” to mean “net profits” instead of “gross receipts” in at least some money laundering cases. In the resulting confusion, lower courts have struggled to determine when the Court’s ruling applies, and how the Government may satisfy the “profits” requirement when it must do so. This article discusses the Court’s decision in United States v. Santos and the problems that it has created, and attempts to make sense of the post-Santos case law.

Santos and Cuellar: The U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Government's Ability to Prosecute Transnational Crime Under the Money Laundering Statutes

Stefan D. Cassella — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:52:48 PDT

These are the lecture notes from a presentation on the impact of the Supreme Court's decisions on June 2, 2008 in the Santos and Cuellar cases, which arguably have limited the government's ability to use the anti-money laundering statutes to prosecute both domestic and international money laundering offenses. A more formal paper on this topic will be forthcoming.

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure in 2008: A Survey of Developments in the Case Law

Stefan D. Cassella — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:49:13 PDT

This is an annual survey of the federal case law relating to criminal forfeiture procedure. Forfeiture is part of the sentence in a criminal case. The article discusses the cases from 2007 discussing the scope of criminal forfeiture, the rights of third parties, and the procedures under Rule 32.2 and Section 853, including indictment, seizure and restraint, guilty pleas, the bifurcated trial, sentencing, and the post-trial ancillary proceeding. Copyright © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.

Money Laundering Has Gone Global

Stefan D. Cassella — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:09:45 PDT

The article, written in layman's terms, lists the enhancements that Congress needs to make to the money laundering laws to keep pace with the globalization of crime.

Does Apprendi v. New Jersey Change the Standard of Proof in Criminal Forfeiture Cases?

Stefan D. Cassella — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:06:20 PDT

The article, written shortly after the Supreme Court decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, sets forth the arguments why the decision will not require the imposition of the reasonable doubt standard in criminal forfeiture cases, nor require that forfeiture matters be tried to a jury.

The Case for Civil Forfeiture: Why In Rem Proceedings are an Essential Tool for Recovering the Proceeds of Crime

Stefan D. Cassella — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:50:47 PDT

The article outlines the reasons why a purely in personam asset forfeiture system that relies on a criminal conviction for the recovery of criminal proceeds is inadequate, and why governments implementing asset forfeiture schemes should make civil in rem forfeiture part of the legislative program.

Provisions of the USA Patriot Act Relating to Asset Forfeiture in Transnational Cases

Stefan D. Cassella — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:04:02 PDT

The article outlines the provisions of the USA Patriot Act that enhance the power of the US Government to use the asset forfeiture laws to recover property involved in transnational crime, including the power to seize assets from the correspondent account of a foreign bank.

Terrorism and the Financial Sector: Are the Right Prosecutorial Tools Being Used?

Stefan D. Cassella — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:57:13 PDT

The article suggests that the statutes enacted to deal specifically with terrorist financing are not always the most appropriate vehicles either for bringing criminal charges or recovering assets under the forfeiture laws, but that most traditional and generic statutes, such as those dealing with money laundering, bulk cash smuggling and currency reporting violations might be more effective in most cases.

The Recovery of Criminal Proceeds Generated in One Nation and Found in Another

Stefan D. Cassella — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:44:18 PDT

This article discusses the difficulties governments face in dealing with criminals who move the proceeds of crime across political boundaries. It discusses several common international money laundering processes, such as the black market peso exchange, and then outlines in some detail the issues that arise when one country attempts to gain the assistance of another in recovering the criminal proceeds under the asset forfeiture laws.

Recovering the Proceeds of Crime from the Correspondent Account of a Foreign Bank

Stefan D. Cassella — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:50:35 PDT

This article discusses the provisions, purposes and legislative history of 18 U.S.C. 981(k), a provision of the USA Patriot Act that allows the United States to use to asset forfeiture laws to recover property deposited into a foreign bank account by seizing funds from the foreign bank's correspondent account in the U.S. The article also discusses how this provision was applied in a case involving the laundering of the proceeds of a telemarketing scheme through money exchangers and banks in the Middle East.

The Development of Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States

Stefan D. Cassella — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:33:55 PDT

This chapter, written for a foreign audience unfamiliar with U.S. constitutional law, traces the history of the development of asset forfeiture law in the United States from the 18th Century to present, with focus on the constitutional issues that had to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. A similar study appears as Chapter 2 of the author's treatise Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States.

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000: Expanded Government Forfeiture Authority and Strict Deadlines

Stefan D. Cassella — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:25:14 PDT

This article discusses the legislative history of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) and explains in detail the procedures for commencing and contesting administrative and civil forfeiture proceedings under 18 U.S.C. 983.

The Uniform Innocent Owner Defense to Civil Asset Forfeiture

Stefan D. Cassella — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:52:30 PDT

This article discusses in detail the innocent owner defense to civil asset forfeiture actions, 18 U.S.C. 983(d), that was enacted as part of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure in 2006: A Survey of Developments in the Case Law

Stefan D. Cassella — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:40:27 PDT

This article is one in series of annual surveys of the case law regarding criminal forfeiture procedure and the adjudication of third party rights in criminal forfeiture cases. It covers the case law from 2005 through early 2006.

Application of 18 USC 1960 to Informal Money Service Businesses

Stefan D. Cassella — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:35:47 PDT

The article proposes that 18 USC 1960, a criminal statute that criminalizes the unlicensed operation of a money service business, may be used to prosecute not only traditional bricks and mortar businesses, but also informal money transfer operations of the kind typically used by drug trafficking, terrorist financing and other criminal organizations.

Third Party Rights in Criminal Forfeiture Cases

Stefan D. Cassella — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:29:04 PDT

This article discusses the statutory procedures and the case law regarding the adjudication of the rights of third parties in property that a defendant has been ordered to forfeit in a criminal case. In particular, it discusses the ancillary proceeding governed by 21 U.S.C. 853(n) in detail. The case law references are now outdated and have been superceded by the discussion in Chapter 24 of the author's treatise, Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States. Nevertheless the article provides a good introduction to the topic.

Overview of Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States

Stefan D. Cassella — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:39:34 PDT

This article is intended to give the foreign reader, or a reader unfamiliar with the basics of asset forfeiture law in the United States, an introduction to the topic. The article explains the distinctions between administrative, civil and criminal forfeiture and lists the reasons why the government would choose one procedure over the other in certain typical situations.