United States' Motion for Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) — United States v. Damian Halfkenny (Dkt. 10)

Summary

The United States' Motion for Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment), Document 10, filed June 10, 2026 in United States v. Damian Halfkenny, Criminal No. 26-CR-10107-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The motion cites 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and Rule 32.2(b). It states that a one-count Information filed April 10, 2026 charged Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, that the defendant pled guilty to Count One on April 14, 2026, and that in the written plea agreement the defendant agreed to forfeit $21,332.79 as proceeds; the government asks the court to enter a personal money judgment in that amount and to include it in the sentence and judgment. It is signed /s/ Carol E. Head.

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

Full text

       Case 1:26-cr-10107-NMG           Document 10       Filed 06/10/26      Page 1 of 4




                              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 2 of 4




       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


                                                  2
        Case 1:26-cr-10107-NMG             Document 10         Filed 06/10/26       Page 3 of 4




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


                                                    3
       Case 1:26-cr-10107-NMG            Document 10        Filed 06/10/26      Page 4 of 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




                                                  4


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.298904.10.0.pdf

Size

168,754 bytes

SHA-256

bb54cf97e3b1f15387a1fe2f3c654a81628d9234e46d9fc623eb78ca435377e1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.298904.10.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.