Motion for Order of Forfeiture — United States of America v. Boylett (Dkt. 27)

Summary

A four-page Government's Motion for Order of Forfeiture filed July 28, 2022 as document 27 in United States of America v. Jeffrey Boylett, Cause No. 2:21-CR-00154 JD (Case 2:21-cr-00154-JD-JPK), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. The government states that the defendant has been convicted of wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, as alleged in Count 1 of the Indictment, and that on June 27, 2022 he agreed in a plea agreement to a money judgment of $109,900.00 representing the proceeds he derived from the scheme. It states that no specific assets have been identified and asks the Court to enter an order of forfeiture consisting of a personal money judgment in that amount. It is signed /s/ Thomas M. McGrath, Assistant United States Attorney.

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

“Motion for Order of Forfeiture — United States of America v. Boylett (Dkt. 27).” Original at ecf.innd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-united-states-of-america-v-boylett-dkt-3dce69bc5f/, SHA-256 8f0caaf12081e8d855dc559d1f0c4d2976fefa69db11d7d4eedfc650bfc48661.

Full text

USDC IN/ND case 2:21-cr-00154-JD-JPK     document 27   filed 07/28/22   page 1 of 4


                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
                         HAMMOND DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                    )
                                            )
      v.                                    ) CAUSE NO. 2:21-CR-00154 JD
                                            )
                                            )
JEFFREY BOYLETT                             )


      GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER OF FORFEITURE

      Comes now United States of America, by its counsel, Clifford D.

Johnson, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana,

through Thomas M. McGrath, Assistant United States Attorney, and moves

for entry of a motion for Order of Forfeiture for the reasons set forth below.

      1.    Defendant has been convicted of wire fraud, in violation of Title

18, United States Code, Section 1343 as alleged in Count 1 of the Indictment.

In the Indictment, the United States gave notice to the Defendant that in the

event of conviction, the government would seek forfeiture pursuant to Title

18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code,

Section 2461(c) of all proceeds derived from the alleged offense.

      2.    On June 27, 2022, the Defendant, Jeffrey Boylett, entered into a

plea agreement with the United States in which he agreed to the entry of


                                        1
USDC IN/ND case 2:21-cr-00154-JD-JPK     document 27    filed 07/28/22   page 2 of 4


money judgment of $109,900.00 representing the amount of proceeds he

derived from the commission of the scheme to which he was pleading guilty.

On July 5, 2022, the Defendant entered his guilty plea before the Court.

      3.     The United States has not, as of this date, identified specific

assets that were derived from the offenses for which the Defendant has been

convicted.

      4.     Accordingly, the United States seeks the entry of an Order of

Forfeiture consisting of a personal money judgment against the Defendant,

Jeffrey Boylett, in the amount of $109,900.00.

      5.     Because the forfeiture order will consist only of a money

judgment, no ancillary proceeding will be required to adjudicate the interests

of third parties in the forfeited property. See Rule 32.2 (c)(1).

      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. Such orders of forfeiture are

commonplace. See United States v. Baker, 227 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2000) (a

forfeiture order may include a money judgment for the amount of money

involved in the money laundering offense; the money judgment acts as a lien

against the defendant personally for the duration of his prison term and



                                        2
USDC IN/ND case 2:21-cr-00154-JD-JPK      document 27   filed 07/28/22   page 3 of 4


beyond); United States v. Ginsburg, 773 F.2d 798, 801-02 (7th Cir. 1985) (en

banc) (criminal forfeiture is a personal judgment that requires the defendant

to pay the total amount derived from the criminal activity, Aregardless of

whether the specific dollars received from that activity are still in his

possession@); United States v. Holland, 160 F.3d 377, 380 (7th Cir. 1998)

(defendant ordered to pay judgment equal to value of property concealed from

bankruptcy court and subsequently laundered); United States v. Padron, 527

F.3d 1156, 1162 (11th Cir. 2008) (the authority to issue a forfeiture order in

the form of a money judgment is clear).

      7.   Once the Order of Forfeiture is entered, the Government may

collect on the forfeiture judgment in the same way that a successful plaintiff

collects a money judgment from a civil defendant, see United States v. Hall,

434 F.3d 42, 59 (1st Cir. 2006), and 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, as substitute assets.

See United States v. Baker, 227 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2000) (once the

Government has obtained a money judgment, it may forfeit defendant’s real

property in partial satisfaction of that judgment); United States v. Davis, 177

F. Supp.2d 470 (E.D. Va. 2001) (if property cannot be forfeited as directly



                                        3
USDC IN/ND case 2:21-cr-00154-JD-JPK     document 27    filed 07/28/22   page 4 of 4


traceable to the offense, it can be forfeited as a substitute asset and used to

satisfy the money judgment).

      WHEREFORE, by virtue of the plea agreement and the determination

of the amount of money derived from the offense for which the Defendant was

convicted, a money judgment should be entered against the Defendant in the

amount of $109,900.00.

      Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that this Court

enter an order of forfeiture as proposed in the attached order.



                                     Respectfully submitted,

                                     CLIFFORD D. JOHNSON
                                     UNITED STATES ATTORNEY


                               BY:    /s/Thomas M. McGrath
                                     Thomas M. McGrath
                                     Assistant United States Attorney
                                     United States Attorney's Office
                                     5400 Federal Plaza, Suite 1500
                                     Hammond, Indiana 46320
                                     Tel: (219) 937-5500
                                     Fax: (219) 852-2770
                                     E-mail: Thomas.McGrath@usdoj.gov




                                        4

File and source

File: 27-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-money-judgment-as-to-jeffrey-.pdf
Size: 101,405 bytes
SHA-256: 8f0caaf12081e8d855dc559d1f0c4d2976fefa69db11d7d4eedfc650bfc48661
Our copy: 27-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-money-judgment-as-to-jeffrey-.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)