Opinion
Case No. 03-cr-30190-MJR.
February 23, 2006
ORDER OF FORFEITURE WITH RESPECT TO PROCEEDS OF $263,200.00
In the Second Superseding Indictment filed in the above cause on January 20, 2005, the United States sought forfeiture of property of defendant, Daniel Wayne Stark, Sr., pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1).
The Court finds that the property obtained by the defendant as described in Count 28 ($25,000.00), Count 29 ($22,600.00), and Count 30 ($24,000.00) were all "involved in" the violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 as specified in each of said counts. For these three counts alone, the defendant shall forfeit $71,600.00.
In addition, Count 27 describes a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) to engage in monetary transactions in criminally derived property. Using the interpretation of the Seventh Circuit of what constitutes property "involved in" for purposes of forfeiture (see United States v. Trost, 152 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 1998) and United States v. Baker, 227 F.3d 955, 967-971 (7th Cir. 2000); cert. denied 531 U.S. 1151 (2001)), it is clear that those transactions where the defendant obtained funds in exchange for stolen property are all "involved in" the conspiracy described in Count 27 of the Indictment, and the funds are thus forfeitable. The illegal transactions are included in Government's Exhibit 300 and are more fully detailed and described as follows: Record in Item Record of support of Price paid Number Equipment Witness testifying price paid for stolen in Exhibit witness for stolen item 300 item
The witness Larry Gravil indicated that he purchased this item for "$11,500 or $12,000" (Vol. VII, page 30). The Court will construe the ambiguity in favor of the defendant and adopts the lower figure of $11,500.
A monetary forfeiture judgment is entered in favor of the United States and against defendant Daniel Wayne Stark, Sr. in the amount of $263,200.00. Said judgment may be enforced 1) as an ordinary monetary judgment, 2) by, where appropriate, the forfeiture of substitute assets, or 3) by a combination of both, as long as double recovery is not obtained by the government.
Said forfeiture judgment for $263,200.00 is separate from and in addition to any judgment for restitution to be entered by this Court and is enforceable above and beyond any said judgment for restitution.
In that the forfeiture consists of a money judgment, it is not necessary for the United States to publish or provide notice or for the Court to conduct an ancillary hearing.
Upon sentencing, this Order for Forfeiture will become final with respect to defendant Daniel Wayne Stark, Sr. and will be made part of his sentence and shall be included in his judgement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.