In the Courts

On June 5, 2017, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Sonya Sotomayor, the United States Supreme Court ruled to narrow the scope of criminal asset forfeiture by restricting the federal government's ability to obtain proceeds from a criminal conspirator who never possessed the criminal proceeds. In doing so, the Court reversed the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and resolved the split among other federal circuits as to whether co-conspirators could be held jointly and severally liable for asset forfeiture under the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 (21 U.S.C. § 583). In the case at issue, Honeycutt v. United States, the court held that forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 583(a)(1) is “limited to the property the defendant himself actually acquired as a result of the crime.”

Terry Honeycutt, a salaried employee, managed sales and inventory at a Tennessee hardware store owned by his brother, Tony Honeycutt. At his hardware store, Tony Honeycutt sold iodine-based water-purification products known as Polar Pure. After noticing several “edgy looking” individuals purchase the water-purification products, Terry Honeycutt asked the local police whether the product could be used to manufacture methamphetamine. An officer confirmed Polar Pure's use in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and advised Terry to stop selling the product if it made him “uncomfortable.” Nonetheless, the Honeycutt brothers continued to sell the product — and Terry and Tony sold as many as 12 bottles in a single transaction to a single customer, even though most people “have no legitimate use for the product in large quantities.” Over three years, “the store grossed roughly $400,000 from the sale of more than 20,000 bottles of Polar Pure.”