§

United States v. Bldg. Prop. Known as 123, Etc.

527 F. Supp. 1167 (W.D. Pa. 1981)
United States v. Bldg. Prop. Known as 123, Etc.

5 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. on Leong Chinese Merchants Ass'n Bldg

    918 F.2d 1289 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that federal forfeiture statute at 18 U.S.C. § 1955(d) could not be read to exclude real property because the phrase "any property" unambiguously includes both personal and real property

    Only two district courts, with which we disagree, have held that the forfeiture of land is inappropriate under the statute. See United States v. Building and Property known as 123-125 East Twelfth St., 527 F. Supp. 1167 (W.D. Pa. 1981); Di Giacomo v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 1009 (D.Del. 1972). The legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 1955(d) furnishes no reason to depart from the plain meaning of the statutory language.

  2. U.S. v. S. Half of Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 14

    876 F.2d 1362 (8th Cir. 1989)   Cited 8 times

    Attempts in other circuits to use the law to reach real property have had limited success. See United States v. Premises and Real Property 614 Portland, 846 F.2d 166, 167 (2nd Cir. 1988), aff'g 670 F. Supp. 475 (W.D.N.Y. 1988) (real property forfeitable); United States v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family, 683 F. Supp. 1411, 1460 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (real property forfeitable); United States v. Various Denominations of Currency, 628 F. Supp. 4, 8 (S.D.W.Va. 1984) (real property forfeitable); United States v. Bldg. Prop. Known as 123, etc., 527 F. Supp. 1167, 1168 (W.D.Pa. 1981) (real property not forfeitable); DiGiacomo v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 1009, 1012 (D.Del. 1972) (real property not forfeitable). We begin our analysis of whether the forfeiture provisions of section 1955(d) reach real property by recognizing that "[f]orfeitures are not favored; they should be enforced only when within both letter and spirit of the law."

  3. U.S. v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family

    683 F. Supp. 1411 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)   Cited 65 times
    Finding criminal complaint in RICO case insufficient where government merely cited previous judicial decision against defendant and questioning "the sufficiency of merely citing a judicial decision in a complaint as a means of incorporating the facts stated in the decision by reference"

    The decisions are evenly divided. In two of the decisions, United States v. Building Property known as123-125 East Twelfth Street, Erie, Pennsylvania, 527 F. Supp. 1167 (W.D.Pa. 1981), and DiGiacomo v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 1009 (D.Del. 1972), the courts held that real property is not forfeitable under § 1955(d), reasoning that Congress would have expressly included real property in § 1955(d) had it intended real property to be covered, that seizures under admiralty and customs procedures made applicable to § 1955(d) forfeitures always involve personal, not real, property, that the only instances in which forfeitures of real property have been approved have been under statutes expressly authorizing forfeiture of real property, and, finally, that "the problem of disposing of various interests in real property presents many complications." DiGiacomo, 346 F. Supp. at 1012.

  4. U.S. v. Premises Real Prop. 614 Portland

    670 F. Supp. 475 (W.D.N.Y. 1987)   Cited 11 times
    Building and property not described

    The one other reported case addressing this issue is a short decision which simply poses the question and follows DiGiacomo. United States v. Building and Property Known as 123-125 East 12th Street, Erie, Pennsylvania, 527 F. Supp. 1167 (W.D.Pa. 1981). Section 1955 was passed as a part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91-452.

  5. United States v. Various Denom. of Currency

    628 F. Supp. 4 (S.D.W. Va. 1984)   Cited 8 times
    Noting the possibility of the defense

    As authority for these propositions, they cite DiGiacomo v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 1009 (D.Del. 1972). DiGiacomo v. United States, supra, and United States v. Building and Property Known As 123-125 East Twelfth Street, Erie, Pennsylvania, 527 F. Supp. 1167 (W.D.Pa. 1981), which relies on DiGiacomo, are the only two reported cases of which the court is aware addressing the question of whether real property is forfeitable under § 1955(d). The analysis in DiGiacomo is not persuasive.