Order granting 148 Motion for Forfeiture of Property — USA v. Crowther (Dkt. 157, M.D. Fla. No. 2:20-mj-01094)

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT MYERS DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
VS. 
CASE NO: 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM 
CASEY DAVID CROWTHER 
 
 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on the government’s Motion 
for Order of Forfeiture and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for 
Direct Assets (Doc. #148) filed on May 27, 2021.  Defendant filed 
a Response (Doc. #149) on June 10, 2021 and the government filed 
a Reply (Doc. #152) on June 21, 2021.  
The government seeks an order of forfeiture in the amount of 
$2,739,081.21, and a preliminary order of forfeiture for the 
following assets: 
a. 
a 2020 40’ Invincible Catamaran, Hull ID# IVBC0076D920, 
registered to and owned by defendant; and  
b. 
approximately $630,482.37 received from the sale of the 
real property located at 3653 San Carlos Drive, Saint 
James City, Florida 33956, in lieu of the property itself. 
(Doc. #148, p. 1.)  The government asserts that the property 
identified above is traceable to the proceeds defendant obtained 
from the bank fraud schemes, making false statements to lending 
institutions, and money laundering.  (Id. p. 5.)  The government 

 
- 2 - 
 
also seeks an order of forfeiture against defendant for 
$2,739,081.21 pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2).  (Id. p. 9.)  This 
amount represents the loan and mortgage funds defendant obtained 
from the offenses charged in Counts One through Six.  (Id. p. 9.)   
 
Defendant objects to forfeiture on multiple grounds, arguing: 
(1) the request incorporates untainted funds that were not derived 
from criminal proceeds; (2) a money judgment for untainted funds 
would result in an excessive fine in violation of defendant’s 
Eighth Amendments rights; and (3) there is no statutory authority 
to support such an order.  (Doc. #149, pp. 2-3.)  The Court finds 
none of these arguments convincing.   
As to the first two points, the government’s request does not 
incorporate untainted funds.  Defendant obtained $2,739,081.21 in 
loan proceeds as a result of his criminal actions, and therefore 
$2,739,081.21 is subject to forfeiture.  See 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2) 
(providing that in imposing a sentence for violations of bank fraud 
and false statement to a lending institution offenses, “[t]he court 
. . . shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any 
property constituting or derived from, proceeds the person 
obtained directly or indirectly as the result of such violation”); 
United States v. Joel, 2012 WL 2499424, *3 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2012) 
(“[A] defendant convicted of a financial institution offense is 
liable for forfeiture of the entire amount of the loan.”).  Because 
the requested forfeiture does not incorporate untainted funds, 

 
- 3 - 
 
defendant’s excessive fine argument under the Eighth Amendment is 
moot.  Additionally, the Court rejects defendant’s statutory 
authority argument.  See United States v. Waked Hatum, 969 F.3d 
1156, 1164 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Unless and until Congress, the 
Supreme Court, or this Court sitting en banc changes the law of 
forfeiture, we will follow this Court’s precedent permitting 
forfeiture money judgments.”).    
Having reviewed the arguments of the parties, the Court hereby 
finds that, based on the facts at trial and the jury’s finding of 
guilt on Counts One (bank fraud scheme), Two (making a false 
statement to a lending institution), Three and Four (money 
laundering offenses) of the Second Superseding Indictment, as well 
as defendant’s guilty plea to Counts Five (bank fraud scheme) and 
Six (making a false statement to a lending institution) of the 
Second Superseding Indictment, (1) at least $2,739,081.21 in 
proceeds was obtained and laundered by defendant as a result of  
the offenses charged in Counts One through Six, and (2) the direct 
assets identified above constitute or are derived from proceeds 
obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offenses 
charged in Counts One, Two, Five and Six, and/or is property 
involved in the money laundering offense charged in Count Four, or 
is property traceable to such property. 
Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED: 

 
- 4 - 
 
The government’s Motion for Order of Forfeiture and 
Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for Direct Assets (Doc. #148) is 
GRANTED.  It is hereby ordered: 
1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1), 982(a)(2)(A), and Rule 
32.2(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 
defendant shall be held liable for an order of forfeiture 
in the amount of $2,739,081.21.   
2. The United States may seek, as a substitute asset, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 
982(b)(1), forfeiture of any of defendant’s property up to 
the value of $2,739,081.21 because the $2,739,081.21 in 
proceeds was dissipated by defendant. 
3. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1), 982(a)(2)(A), and Rule 
32.2(b)(2), the direct assets identified above are hereby 
forfeited to the United States for disposition according 
to law.   
4. The net proceeds from the forfeiture and sale of any 
specific assets shall be credited to and reduce the amount 
the United States shall be entitled to forfeit as 
substitute assets. 
5. This ORDER shall become a final order of forfeiture as to 
defendant at sentencing. 
The Court retains jurisdiction to address any third party 
claim that may be asserted in these proceedings, to enter any 

 
- 5 - 
 
further order necessary for the forfeiture and disposition of such 
property, and for any substitute assets that the United States may 
be entitled to seek up to the amount of the order of forfeiture. 
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this   25th   day 
of June, 2021. 
 
 
 
 
Copies: 
Counsel of Record

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.157.0.pdf

Size

99,120 bytes

SHA-256

79fc0a91d304c6b474cff79f6c12482538158173252a9e218384d3bdb1130aa8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.157.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)