•  
  •  
 

Publication Date

2025

Abstract

This Note analyzes the intricacies surrounding the application of joint and several liability to criminal asset forfeiture, particularly following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Honeycutt v. United States. Starting with a historical analysis of asset forfeiture’s early use in civil contexts to the application of forfeiture in the criminal context under statutes like RICO, this Note addresses the tension between the Eighth Amendment right to receive punishment proportional to the crime and the government’s incentives to pursue forfeitable assets. This Note then recounts a previous circuit split over the permissibility of joint and several liability in criminal asset forfeiture, which the Supreme Court attempted to resolve through Honeycutt by prohibiting the application of joint and several liability in the criminal context to narcotics violations under 21 U.S.C. § 853. Yet, in doing so, the Court created another circuit split on whether the Honeycutt prohibition is limited to § 853 violations or extends to other criminal violations with statutory language resembling that of § 853. Finally, this Note analyzes a lack of clear congressional intent supporting a broad application of joint and several liability to criminal contexts, compares the language of § 853 with that of RICO to illustrate significant parallels, and argues that joint and several liability in the criminal context undermines the policy goals of criminal asset forfeiture. Ultimately, this Note advocates for a broader application of the Honeycutt prohibition to ensure consistency among the circuits and to uphold the principle that punishment should fit the crime.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS