NCJ Number
114656
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 79 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1988) Pages: 328-436
Date Published
1988
Length
109 pages
Annotation
Only the proceeds of crime are appropriate for criminal forfeiture, and this should be general and mandatory. Forfeiture, however, should not go exclusively to the state, but should be dispersed by an independent agency to the offender's victims and creditors, including the offender's attorney.
Abstract
Both the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 (CFA) provide for offenders convicted under the acts to forfeit gross receipts from the crime, the 'instrumentalities of crime,' and interests in any enterprise operated through or acquired by a pattern of racketeering activity. Only the gross receipts from the crime at issue should be subject to criminal forfeiture, and such a forfeiture should be mandatory for all crimes, not just those covered by RICO and the CFA. Additional penalties should accompany forfeiture, since forfeiture does nothing more than attempt to eliminate the financial cost of the crime rather than punish or deter the offender. Contrary to the provisions of RICO and CFA, criminal forfeitures should not go exclusively to the state. First priority for receipt of forfeiture proceeds should go to victims of the crime at issue and those to whom the offender is indebted because of the crime. Forfeiture proceeds could best be dispersed by an independent government agency. 497 footnotes.