Motion for Order of Forfeiture — U.S. v. Halfkenny (D. Mass.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · No. 1:26-cr-10107-NMG · Doc. 10 · 2026-06-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
) 
 
 
) 
 
v. 
) 
Criminal No. 26-CR-10107-NMG 
 
) 
 
DAMIAN HALFKENNY, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Defendant. 
) 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR ORDER OF FORFEITURE (MONEY JUDGMENT) 
The United States of America, by its attorney, Leah B. Foley, United States Attorney for 
the District of Massachusetts, respectfully moves this Court for the issuance of an Order of 
Forfeiture (Money Judgment) in the above-captioned case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) 
and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and Rule 32.2(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  A 
proposed Order of Forfeiture is submitted herewith.  In support thereof, the United States sets 
forth the following: 
1. 
On April 10, 2026, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts 
filed a one-count Information, charging defendant Damian Halfkenny (the “Defendant”), with 
Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count One). 
2. 
The Information also included a forfeiture allegation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), which provided notice that the United States intended to 
seek the forfeiture, upon conviction of the Defendant of the offense alleged in Count One of the 
Information, of any property, real or personal, which constitutes, or is derived from, proceeds 
traceable to the commission of the offense.  Such property specifically included, without 
limitation: 
a. 
$21,332.79, to be entered in the form of a forfeiture money  
 
 
judgment. 
Case 1:26-cr-10107-NMG     Document 10     Filed 06/10/26     Page 1 of 4

 
 
2 
3. 
The Information further provided that, if any of the above-described forfeitable 
property, as a result of any act or omission by the Defendant, (a) cannot be located upon the 
exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; (c) 
has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in 
value; or (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without 
difficulty, the United States is entitled to seek forfeiture of any other property of the Defendant, 
up to the value of such assets, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2461(c).  
4. 
On April 14, 2026, at a hearing pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure, the Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Information, pursuant to a 
written plea agreement that he signed on April 10, 2026.  See Docket No. 3.  In Section 6 of the 
plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to forfeit to the United States $21,332.79 on the grounds 
that such amount represents proceeds the Defendant derived from the offense.  Id. at 4. 
5. 
Based on the Defendant’s admissions in the written plea agreement and his guilty 
plea on April 14, 2026, the United States is entitled to an Order of Forfeiture consisting of a 
personal money judgment against the Defendant, in the amount of $21,332.79, pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).  This amount represents the proceeds of the 
Defendant=s crimes. 
6. 
The entry of an Order of Forfeiture in the form of a personal money judgment is 
specifically authorized by Rule 32.2(b)(1) and (c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 
and such orders of forfeiture are commonplace.  See, e.g., United States v. Ponzo, 853 F.3d 558, 
589-90 (1st Cir. 2017) (criminal forfeiture order may take several forms, including an in 
Case 1:26-cr-10107-NMG     Document 10     Filed 06/10/26     Page 2 of 4

 
 
3 
personam judgment against defendant for amount of money defendant obtained as proceeds of 
offense); United States v. Zorrilla-Echevarria, 671 F.3d 1, 11 n.15 (1st Cir. 2011) (“A criminal 
forfeiture may take the form of either (1) ‘an in personam judgment against the defendant for the 
amount of money the defendant obtained as proceeds of the offense,’ (2) forfeiture of specific 
assets related to criminal activity, or (3) forfeiture of ‘substitute assets’ if the specific assets are 
unavailable.”) (citation omitted); United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42, 59 (1st Cir. 2006) (same). 
7. 
Once the Order of Forfeiture is entered, the United States may move at any time, 
pursuant to Rule 32.2(e)(1)(B), to amend the Order to forfeit specific property of the Defendant, 
having a value up to the amount of the money judgment.  See Zorrilla-Echevarria, 671 F.3d at 
11 n.15 (“[a] money judgment permits the government to collect on the forfeiture order … even 
if a defendant does not have sufficient funds to cover the forfeiture at the time of the conviction, 
the government may seize future assets to satisfy the order”); United States v. Saccoccia, 564 
F.3d 502, 506-07 (1st Cir. 2009) (once government obtains money judgment, it may move at any 
time to forfeit direct or substitute assets in partial satisfaction of that judgment). 
8. 
Upon entry of the Order of Forfeiture, the United States may also, pursuant to 
Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, “conduct any discovery the court 
considers proper in identifying, locating or disposing of the property” that has been forfeited to 
the United States.  Such discovery may include the taking of depositions of witnesses.  See 21 
U.S.C. § 853(m), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c); see also United States v. Saccoccia, 
354 F.3d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 2003) (“the government may utilize its enforcement powers under [18 
U.S.C. §] 1963(k) to ‘trace’ tainted funds”); United States v. Saccoccia, 898 F. Supp. 53, 60 
(D.R.I. 1995) (the United States can take depositions of defense counsel to determine source of 
Case 1:26-cr-10107-NMG     Document 10     Filed 06/10/26     Page 3 of 4

 
 
4 
their fees for the purpose of locating a pool of assets controlled by defendant that is subject to 
forfeiture).  In addition, the reference in Rule 32.2(b)(3) to “any discovery the court considers 
proper” necessarily permits the court to authorize discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure.  Such discovery includes, but is not limited to, the authority to issue a request for 
documents to a party under Rule 34 and to a non-party under Rules 34(c) and 45. 
WHEREFORE, the United States requests that this Court: 
(a) 
enter the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) in the form submitted herewith; 
(b) 
retain jurisdiction in this case for purposes of enforcing the forfeiture; 
(c) 
include the forfeiture, as set forth in the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment), in 
the oral pronouncement of the Defendant's sentence; and 
(d) 
incorporate the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) in the criminal judgment 
entered against the Defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4). 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
LEAH B. FOLEY 
United States Attorney 
 
By: 
 /s/ Carol E. Head                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHRISTINE WICHERS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CAROL E. HEAD 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
United States Attorney’s Office 
1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 
Boston, MA 02210 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(617) 748-3100 
 
 
 
Dated: June 10, 2026  
 
 
       carol.head@usdoj.gov 
 
 
Case 1:26-cr-10107-NMG     Document 10     Filed 06/10/26     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.298905.10.0.pdf

Size

168,754 bytes

SHA-256

4e9451b0a93b5dca84ba457570697872046fa5592c9e425454b8bf470381846a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.298905.10.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)