Saccoccia v. United States
955 F.3d 171
1st Cir.2020Background:
- Saccoccia ran precious-metals businesses and from 1990–1991 wired $136,344,231.86 (proceeds of laundering) through a bank account he controlled.
- In 1993 he was convicted on RICO and related counts; the district court ordered forfeiture of $136,344,231.86 under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a).
- This court affirmed in 1995; Saccoccia’s later collateral challenges were denied, including a 2018 denial of leave to file a successive § 2255 based on Honeycutt.
- In May 2018 Saccoccia filed a complaint seeking vacatur/return of forfeited property, invoking Honeycutt and seeking relief via coram nobis, audita querela, mandamus, Rule 41(g), and declaratory/injunctive relief.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a plausible claim but declined to rule on Honeycutt’s applicability.
- The First Circuit affirmed, explaining that even assuming favorable procedural/legal rulings for Saccoccia, Honeycutt does not apply here because Saccoccia controlled and distributed the proceeds at issue.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of procedural avenues to undo forfeiture (coram nobis, audita querela, mandamus, Rule 41(g), declaratory/injunctive relief) | Honeycutt renders forfeiture void ab initio; these remedies entitle return/vacatur | Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief | Dismissal affirmed; Court relied on factual inapplicability of Honeycutt rather than resolving each procedural vehicle |
| Whether Honeycutt applies retroactively on collateral review | Honeycutt applies retroactively to invalidate his forfeiture | Govt. opposed (and procedural bars previously applied) | Court did not decide retroactivity (unnecessary to outcome) |
| Whether Honeycutt governs forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (RICO) | Honeycutt’s rule should invalidate RICO-based joint-and-several forfeiture | Govt. disputed applicability to facts/statute | Court did not decide statutory reach (unnecessary to outcome) |
| Whether Honeycutt forbids joint-and-several forfeiture when defendant controlled the proceeds | Honeycutt forecloses joint-and-several liability for co-conspirators generally | Honeycutt applies only to defendants who never acquired/controlled tainted property; if defendant controlled proceeds, forfeiture may stand | Held against Saccoccia: Honeycutt does not bar liability here because he controlled the bank account and oversaw distribution of the funds |
Key Cases Cited
- Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (Supreme Court held § 853(a)(1) limits forfeiture to property the defendant himself obtained and precludes joint-and-several forfeiture for co-conspirators who never acquired tainted property)
- United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1995) (affirming Saccoccia’s conviction, sentence, and forfeiture)
- Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 496 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground made manifest by the record)
- United States v. Tanner, 942 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2019) (distinguishing Honeycutt where defendant controlled proceeds and thus rejecting Honeycutt challenge)
- United States v. Bane, 948 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) (refusing to apply Honeycutt to an owner/operator who obtained and controlled criminal proceeds)