18 U.S.C. § 934

Forfeiture and fines

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Forfeiture.—(1)In general.—Any person convicted of a violation of section 932 or 933 shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law—(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation, except that for any forfeiture of any firearm or ammunition pursuant to this section, section 924(d) shall apply.(2)Imposition.—The court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of a violation of section 932 or 933, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to section 932 or 933, that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).(b)Fines.—A defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense under section 932 or 933 may be fined not more than the greater of—(1) the fine otherwise authorized by this part; or(2) the amount equal to twice the gross profits or other proceeds of the offense under section 932 or 933.(Added Pub. L. 117–159, div. A, title II, § 12004(a)(1), June 25, 2022, 136 Stat. 1327.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesRule of Construction

Nothing in section 12004(a)(1) of Pub. L. 117–159, which enacted this section, to be construed to allow the establishment of a Federal system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions, see section 12004(k) of Pub. L. 117–159, set out as a note under section 922 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: United States v. Garza, 61 M.J. 799 (A.C.C.A. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Garza, 61 M.J. 799 (A.C.C.A. 2005). “OPINION OF THE COURT ON RECONSIDERATION MERCK, Senior Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, in accordance with his pleas, of unlawful entry and indecent assault, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 18 U.S.C. §…”

United States v. Henry Ruiz, 446 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2006). “Counts IV *768 through XI charged each of the eight defendants individually with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 934 (c)(1)(A). Count XII charged all of the defendants with criminal forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.”

Lamar Forbes v. John Phelan (D.C. Cir. 2025). “10 18 U.S.C. § 934 . Forbes’s argument is that this element is not met because (1) the Assimilative Crimes Act did not assimilate the Virginia statute and therefore (2) his conduct did not violate the Act.”

United States v. Stallworth, 44 M.J. 785 (N.M.C.C.A. 1996). “§ 1001 (1994), an offense charged under Clause 3 of Article 134, UCMJ, 18 U.S.C. § 934 . The appellant was sentenced to be discharged from the naval service with a bad conduct discharge, and the convening authority approved the sentence.”

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.