Plain-English summary
Unanimously affirms that courts can order criminal forfeiture at sentencing despite Rule 32.2 timing error
The Court held that a district court’s failure to enter a preliminary criminal forfeiture order before sentencing under Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) does not automatically bar entry of a forfeiture order at sentencing if the error is harmless. The Court also addressed (and the lower court treated) interstate-commerce jurisdictional issues under the Hobbs Act in a case about theft of cash.
Why this matters
The ruling clarifies that federal courts can correct certain procedural mistakes in criminal forfeiture timing instead of letting defendants avoid forfeiture entirely. That preserves the government’s ability to recover proceeds of crimes in some cases while still requiring judges to consider whether any Rule violation caused prejudice.
Who may feel it
- Defendants in federal criminal cases facing criminal forfeiture
- Federal prosecutors seeking forfeiture of criminal proceeds
- Federal district judges who sentence criminal defendants
- Defense attorneys advising clients about forfeiture risks
Key questions
- Whether a district court may enter a criminal forfeiture order outside the time limits set by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2?
- Whether the theft of cash from an individual satisfies the interstate-commerce element of the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. §1951) to establish federal jurisdiction?