Sentencing — forfeiture

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — forfeiture

The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that a defendant’s properties were purchased with drug trafficking proceeds.

“Mr. Smith contends on appeal that ‘the only evidence’ that his rental income was linked to drug proceeds was his ‘improperly-admitted proffer statements.’ We explained earlier that those proffer statements were admitted properly. Even if the statements were not admitted properly, there is sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Smith’s rental income was not a legitimate and sufficient source for his purchase of the disputed properties. Mr. Smith does not contest that his expenditures far exceeded his modest disability income during the relevant period. He offers no explanation of how he was able to purchase so many properties—either his rental properties or the properties disputed here—on his limited disability income. It therefore was not unreasonable for the district court to conclude, even absent the proffer statements, that Mr. Smith’s finances indicated that his rental income was tainted by illicit drug proceeds. There was certainly sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed properties were subject to forfeiture because they were obtained in part through drug proceeds.”

Affirmed.

13-1375 U.S. v. Smith

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Gilbert, J., Ripple, J.