United States v. Chaplin's, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14265

Chaplin’s was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §1956 and §5324 and faced forfeiture of inventory and a money judgment.
The district court previously entered a preliminary forfeiture; on remand, Browne-based Eighth Amendment review followed.
The controlled-buy involved Seher at Chaplin’s and Midtown to launder drug proceeds and evade Form 8300 reporting.
Chaplin’s argued the inventory was not 'involved in' the offenses and sought Eighth Amendment protection; the Government sought forfeiture.
The district court and this court previously held inventory was forfeitable; on remand, the Eighth Amendment issue was reconsidered using Browne factors.
The court ultimately held the forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate and AFFIRMED the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the inventory forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause	Chaplin’s contends the forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the offense.	Seher and the Government argue forfeiture is within statutory and Guidelines punishment, not excessive.	Not grossly disproportionate; forfeiture affirmed.

United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (excessive forfeiture requires gross disproportionality)
United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2007) (three-factor test for gross disproportionality in fines/forfeitures)
United States v. One 817 N.E. 29th Drive, Wilton Manors, 175 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1999) (strong presumption of constitutionality below maximum penalties)
United States v. Castello, 611 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2010) (forfeiture above statutory maximum may be reviewed with greater scrutiny)
United States v. Jose, 499 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2007) (forfeiture standards across circuits vary; excessive only when grossly disproportional)
United States v. North Bay Road, 13 F.3d 1493 (11th Cir. 1994) (non-trivial property forfeiture in illicit activity context)