18 U.S.C. § 3681
Order of special forfeiture
1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–646, § 40, struck out “chapter 227 or 231 of” after “restitution under”.
Pub. L. 99–399 inserted “an offense under section 794 of this title or for”.
Chapter effective 30 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1989–2006 · leading case: Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989).
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989). “2175 , codified as 18 U. S. C. § 3681 (c)(1)(B) (1982 ed., Supp.”
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991). “Because the Federal Government and most of the States have enacted statutes with similar objectives, see 18 U. S. C. § 3681 ; Note, Simon & Schuster, Inc.”
State Ex Rel. Topeka Police Dep't v. $895.00 U.S. Currency, 133 P.3d 91 (Kan. 2006). “§ 853 (criminal forfeitures) with 18 U.S.C. § 3681 (c)(1)(B)(ii) (forfeited collateral profits) of the Victims Crime Act of 1984, in which Congress expressly exempts a portion of special forfeited collateral profits (e.”
Child. of Bedford, Inc. v. Petromelis, 573 N.E.2d 541 (NY 1991). “Any profits reaped from illegal acts are more appropriately used to provide restitution to the direct victim of the crime, or, alternatively, to victims of crime in general” (S Rep No.”
In Re Moffitt, Zwerling & Kemler, P.C., 864 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Va. 1994). “For a statute providing for forfeiture of money that does not mention traceable property, see 18 U.S.C. § 3681 (a) (civil forfeiture by defendant, convicted of violent crime, of proceeds earned under contract relating to movie, book, or television program based on crime).”
Arnold v. Cnty. of Nassau, 89 F. Supp. 2d 285 (E.D.N.Y 2000). “§ 632-a(b); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3681 (federal “Son of Sam” law).”
Seres v. Lerner, 102 P.3d 91 (Nev. 2004). “at 115 ; see 18 U.S.C. § 3681 (2000); Karen M. Ecker & Margot J.”
New York State Crime Victims Bd. v. T.J.M. Prods., Inc., 176 Misc. 2d 777 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998). “It may have been that the Legislature intended to cede this area to the Federal Son of Sam Law ( 18 USC § 3681 ). While the Federal statute is not a mirror image of the State’s Son of Sam Law (for example, it may only be invoked during the course of the criminal proceeding) it…”
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.