Government's Supplemental Brief re Authority in Support of Forfeiture (Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP, Document 105)

Summary

The government files a supplemental brief on authority in support of forfeiture in United States v. Cassie Will-Darnall, before the Honorable P. Casey Pitts. It says the defendant argued at sentencing that restitution should be reduced in proportion to the amount sought to be forfeited from a Vanguard account, and that there is no legal authority for this. The brief argues forfeiture is mandatory, may not be reduced because of an order of restitution, and rests on criminal proceeds, not the defendant's current finances. It asks the court to enter a final order of forfeiture including real property in Los Gatos, funds up to $625,952.60 in a Vanguard account in the name of Alternative Health Services Inc, and a money judgment of $1,406,594.56. The signature block names Galen A. Phillips.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Government's Supplemental Brief re Authority in Support of Forfeiture (Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP, Document 105).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-cand-430212-105-0-7a3708b9bf/, SHA-256 9159449db614d780cdff3eaa36c7988ca55e2b1ab20868b20cab4095dc5aa343.

Full text

Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 105 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 4

1 CRAIG H. MISSAKIAN (CABN 125202)
United States Attorney
2
MARTHA BOERSCH (CABN 126569)
3 Chief, Criminal Division

4 GALEN A. PHILLIPS (CABN 307644)
Assistant United States Attorney
5
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
6 San Francisco, California 94102-3495
Telephone: (415) 436-7110
7 Email: Galen.Phillips@usdoj.gov

8 Attorneys for United States of America

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. CR-24-00292-PCP
)
13 Plaintiff, ) GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE
) AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF FORFEITURE
14 v. )
) Date: December 3, 2025
15 CASSIE WILL-DARNALL, ) Time: 10:00 a.m.
) Courtroom: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
16 Defendant. ) Judge: Honorable P. Casey Pitts
)
17 SANDRA WILL, )
)
18 Third Party Petitioner. )
)
19

U.S.’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 1
CR-24-00292-PCP
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 105 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 4

1 INTRODUCTION

2 At sentencing, the defendant Cassie Will-Darnall argued restitution should be reduced in

3 proportion to the amount the government seeks to forfeit from a Vanguard account ending in -6846.

4 There is no legal authority for this request.

5 The government will prioritize collecting restitution for the victim over forfeiture. But the Court

6 may not order the government to offset restitution with amounts forfeited. For at least these reasons, the

7 Court must enter a final order of forfeiture as to the defendant including the following property:

8 • Real Property located at 111 Belwood Gateway, Los Gatos CA 95032, Santa Clara
9 County, APN 527-31-019;

10 • All funds up to $625,952.60 on deposit in a Vanguard account ending in -6846, held in
11 the name of Alternative Health Services Inc, and all interest accrued since seizure of

12 those funds; and

13 • A money judgment in the amount of $1,406,594.56.
14 I. Argument

15 A. Forfeiture is Mandatory and May Not Be Reduced Because of an Order of Restitution

16 1. Forfeiture is Mandatory

17 Forfeiture of the proceeds obtained by a defendant is mandatory. “When the government has met

18 the requirements for criminal forfeiture, the district court must impose criminal forfeiture, subject only
19 to statutory and constitutional limits.” United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2011)

20 (citations omitted); see United States v. Omidi, 125 F.4th 1283, 1287 (9th Cir 2025) (“When applicable,

21 such forfeiture is mandatory.”); see also United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 607 (1989) (by using

22 the phrase “shall order” in a different forfeiture statute, 1 “Congress could not have chosen stronger

23 words to express its intent that forfeiture be mandatory in cases where the statute applied”). “[A]ny

24 property which ‘constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to’ a mail or wire fraud scheme is

26
1
27 28 U.S.C. § 2461, the forfeiture statute in the instant case and Omidi contains “shall order” forfeiture language: “If
the defendant is convicted of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture, the court shall order the forfeiture of the property as part
of the sentence in the criminal case pursuant to [to] the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 3554 of title 18,
28
United States Code.”
U.S.’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 2
CR-24-00292-PCP
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 105 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 4

1 subject to forfeiture.” Omidi, 125 F.4th at 1287. “Said more simply, any proceeds that directly or

2 indirectly derive from the fraudulent scheme must be forfeited.” Id.

3 2. Forfeiture and Restitution Are Separate and Do Not Offset Each Other

4 “[C]riminal forfeiture and restitution are separate remedies with different purposes.” United

5 States v. Davis, 706 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). “Although Defendants must pay

6 both restitution and criminal forfeiture, that result is not an impermissible ‘double recovery.’” Newman,

7 659 F.3d at 1240; Davis, 706 F.3d at 1084 (“Even if the same government entity will receive both

8 forfeiture and restitution, there simply is no double recovery. The two payments represent different types

9 of funds: punitive and compensatory. They are different in nature, kind, and purpose.”).

10 “In the absence of a statute authorizing a reduction in forfeiture, the district court may not reduce

11 forfeiture because of an order of restitution to a victim or because the victim already has been made

12 whole.” Newman, 659 F.3d at 1241; see also Davis, 706 F.3d at 1083–84; United States v Arnold, 878

13 F.3d 940, 946 (10th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he statutes mandating restitution and forfeiture do not allow a

14 defendant’s payments toward one to offset the amount owed to the other”); United States v. Alalade, 204

15 F.3d 536, 540 (4th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he plain language of the MVRA did not grant the district court

16 discretion to reduce the amount of restitution” by the amount ordered to be forfeited); United States v.

17 Taylor, 582 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 2009) (a district court that had imposed both forfeiture and

18 restitution “properly adhered” to the mandatory language found within the statutory schemes); United
19 States v. Emerson, 128 F.3d 557, 566–67 (7th Cir. 1997) (rejecting defendant’s request to credit his

20 forfeiture payment towards the restitution amount he owed).

21 3. Forfeiture Is Based on the Criminal Proceeds, Not the Defendant’s Current Finances

22 The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that that money judgments are independent of a

23 defendant’s finances, even in cases with insolvent defendants. “We have explained that ‘[r]equiring

24 imposition of a money judgment on a defendant who currently possesses no assets furthers the remedial

25 purposes of the forfeiture statute by ensuring that all eligible criminal defendants receive the mandatory

26 forfeiture sanction Congress intended and disgorge their ill-gotten gains, even those already spent.’”

27 United States v. Prasad, 18 F.4th 313, 319 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Newman, 659 F.3d at 1243); see also

28 United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071, 1074–76 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] racketeer who dissipates the

U.S.’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 3
CR-24-00292-PCP
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 105 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 4

1 profits or proceeds of his racketeering activity on wine, women, and song has profited from . . . crime to

2 the same extent as if he had put the money in his bank account. Every dollar that the racketeer derives

3 from illicit activities and then spends on such items as food, entertainment, college tuition, and charity,

4 is a dollar that should not have been available for him to spend for those purposes.”); see also United

5 States v. Darji, 609 F. App’x. 320, 332 (6th Cir. 2015) (defendant’s ability to pay is not relevant in

6 forfeiture analysis; “The amount of forfeiture is measured by the amount of proceeds received by a

7 defendant—not the amount of assets a defendant retains at the time of sentencing”).

8 CONCLUSION

9 The Court should enter a final order of forfeiture against the defendant including the following:

10 • Real Property located at 111 Belwood Gateway, Los Gatos CA 95032, Santa Clara
11 County, APN 527-31-019;

12 • All funds up to $625,952.60 on deposit in a Vanguard account ending in -6846, held in
13 the name of Alternative Health Services Inc, and all interest accrued since seizure of

14 those funds; and

15 • A money judgment in the amount of $1,406,594.56.
16

18 DATED: November 24, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

19 CRAIG H. MISSAKIAN
United States Attorney
20

21
_________/S/_______________
22 GALEN A. PHILLIPS
Assistant United States Attorney
23

U.S.’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 4
CR-24-00292-PCP

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.430212.105.0.pdf
Size: 195,277 bytes
SHA-256: 9159449db614d780cdff3eaa36c7988ca55e2b1ab20868b20cab4095dc5aa343
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.430212.105.0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.