United States v. Bajakajian
524 U.S. 321 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's offense.
Facts:
- On June 9, 1994, Hosep Bajakajian and his family were at Los Angeles International Airport, preparing to fly to Italy with a final destination of Cyprus.
- Using currency-sniffing dogs, customs inspectors discovered approximately $230,000 in the family's checked baggage.
- A customs inspector advised Bajakajian of the legal requirement to report any currency in excess of $10,000 being transported out of the country.
- Bajakajian stated that he was carrying $8,000 and his wife had $7,000, and denied possessing any additional currency.
- A subsequent search of their carry-on bags and wallets revealed more cash, bringing the total amount to $357,144.
- The funds were from a legal source and were being transported to repay a lawful debt.
- Bajakajian's failure to report was attributed to a distrust of the government stemming from his cultural background as an Armenian in Syria, not to conceal any other criminal activity.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Hosep Bajakajian on three counts, including willfully failing to report the transportation of currency and seeking criminal forfeiture of the $357,144.
- In the U.S. District Court, Bajakajian pleaded guilty to the failure-to-report count.
- After a bench trial on the forfeiture count, the District Court found that forfeiting the full amount would be grossly disproportionate to the offense and would violate the Excessive Fines Clause.
- The District Court ordered a forfeiture of $15,000, in addition to a $5,000 fine and three years' probation.
- The United States (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking reversal and an order of full forfeiture of the $357,144.
- Bajakajian (appellee) did not cross-appeal the $15,000 forfeiture order.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the forfeiture statute was unconstitutional in currency reporting cases because the money was not an 'instrumentality' of the crime.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the forfeiture of the entire $357,144, for the offense of willfully failing to report the transportation of more than $10,000 in currency, violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes, the forfeiture of the entire $357,144 violates the Excessive Fines Clause. A punitive forfeiture is unconstitutional if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense. The Court first determined that the forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) is a punitive 'fine' subject to the Eighth Amendment, as it is imposed at the culmination of a criminal proceeding and does not serve a remedial purpose. Distinguishing this criminal 'in personam' forfeiture from traditional, non-punitive civil 'in rem' forfeitures, the Court established that the constitutional test is one of proportionality. Applying this 'grossly disproportional' standard, the Court found the forfeiture excessive because Bajakajian's crime was solely a reporting offense; the currency was legally sourced and for a lawful purpose. His culpability was minimal, as reflected by the maximum $5,000 fine and six-month sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The harm to the government was minor, consisting only of the loss of information, making the confiscation of the entire $357,144 grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No, the forfeiture does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause. The forfeiture of the entire amount is a constitutional penalty set by Congress for a serious offense. The majority fails to grant proper deference to Congress, which determined that such a stiff penalty is necessary to deter serious crimes like money laundering, drug trafficking, and tax evasion that rely on unreported cash transfers. The dissent argues that the currency is an 'instrumentality' of the crime and that Bajakajian's offense was aggravated by his repeated lies to customs officials. The majority's holding creates a flawed distinction between 'remedial' and 'punitive' fines and will undermine law enforcement efforts by reducing the penalty to a mere cost of doing business for criminals. The Constitution does not forbid the forfeiture of all cash involved in a willful violation of reporting laws.
Analysis:
This landmark decision was the first in which the Supreme Court applied the Excessive Fines Clause to strike down a government-imposed fine. It established the 'grossly disproportional' test as the constitutional standard for evaluating punitive forfeitures, creating a significant check on the government's forfeiture power. The ruling requires courts to scrutinize the relationship between the value of property forfeited and the seriousness of the underlying crime. This has constrained the government's ability to seek full forfeiture in cases where a defendant's conduct is relatively minor, even if large sums of money are involved, and reinforced the distinction between punitive criminal forfeitures and non-punitive civil ones.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Bajakajian