18 U.S.C. § 2428

Forfeitures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted of a violation of this chapter, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person shall forfeit to the United States—(1) such person’s interest in any property, real or personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and(2) any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation.(b)Property Subject to Forfeiture.—(1)In general.—The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:(A) Any property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of any violation of this chapter.(B) Any property, real or personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to any violation of this chapter.(2)Applicability of chapter 46.—The provisions of chapter 46 of this title relating to civil forfeitures shall apply to any seizure or civil forfeiture under this subsection.(Added Pub. L. 109–164, title I, § 103(d)(1), Jan. 10, 2006, 119 Stat. 3563.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases, 1997–2019 · leading case: United States v. John Robert Andis
United States v. John Robert Andis (2003) ca8 “In the Agreement, he pled guilty to one count of transporting a minor in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2428 (a). In exchange for the Government’s dismissal of the remaining counts in the indictment and promise not to further…”
United States v. Jalaram, Inc. (2010) ca4 · cites it 2× “As Jalaram concedes, however, registration was uncommon, and Jalaram therefore almost certainly received more than $700.”
United States v. Alexander Lukashov, Jr. (2012) ca9 “§ 2241 (c) (Count 1), travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2428 (b) (Count 2), and transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 *1112 U.”
United States v. Scott Hayward (2004) ca3 “Hayward points to no case in which any Court of Appeals required a jury instruction that criminal sexual activity must be the dominant purpose of interstate travel to support a conviction under 18 U.”
United States v. One 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser, VIN JTEBU11F670023522 (2011) gand · cites it 4× “) The Government alleged that the Defendant Vehicle was subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 2428 as property used or intended to be used to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Michael David Blazek (2005) ca8 “§ 2422 (b), and for traveling in interstate commerce to engage in an illegal sexual act with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2428 (a). After Blazek traveled to Chicago, postal inspectors obtained a warrant, searched his apartment, and seized his computer.”
United States v. Michael Goodale (2013) ca8 “§ 2241 (c) (Counts 1 and 2); two counts of interstate transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2428 (a) (Counts 3 and 4); and one count of accessing child pornography with intent to view in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Charles Stokes (2013) ca7 “See 18 U.S.C. § 2428 (b) (effective Oct. 30, 1998 to Nov.”
United States v. Watkins (2012) ca2 “On November 17, 2009, Watkins pled guilty to Count One of a three-count Superseding Indictment for transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2428 (a). 2 The United States Probation Office thereafter…”
United States v. 2001 LEXUS LS430 VIN: JTHBN30F910017797 (2010) vaed · cites it 4× “) On January 29, 2010, the Government filed a Verified Complaint In Rem formally seeking forfeiture of the four-seat 2001 Lexus LS430 and the four-seat 1998 Mitsubishi 3000GT, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2428 . This case is before the Court on Mr.”
In Re Doe (\ Sd\")" (2004) dc “next argues that 18 U.S.C. § 2428 (b) is “not remotely analogous” to attempted enticement of a child under District of Columbia law because it “merely criminalizes the act of crossing state lines with a particular criminal intent, [while] the D.”
United States v. Richard Patrick Cole (2001) ca8 “” 18 U.S.C. § 2428 (a). The indictment charged that Cole “did knowingly transport in interstate commerce, a female who was under the age of 18 years, from the state of Arkansas to the state of Florida, with the intent that such individual engage in sexual activity under such…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.