United States v. Demko, 2:15-cr-00018

Background

Defendant Lorraine Riddiough (aka Lorraine Ann Mader) pleaded guilty in multiple consolidated federal matters to conspiracy, wire/mail fraud, health-care fraud, and theft of government property (cases: Demko, Jones, Scott, and Riddiough informations/indictment).
The plea agreements and forfeiture allegations established that certain assets were traceable to the offenses and subject to criminal forfeiture.
The court found the government had shown the required nexus under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) between the offenses and the listed property/proceeds.
The court entered an in personam criminal forfeiture money judgment against Riddiough totalling $453,145.30, with amounts apportioned among the consolidated matters and not to be held jointly and severally with codefendants for specific shares.
The United States was ordered to seize the identified funds, to hold forfeited property, and to publish notice on www.forfeiture.gov and permit third parties to petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n); deadlines for petitions are set (30 days after direct notice or 60 days after publication).
The court expressly found the money-judgment forfeiture complies with Honeycutt v. United States and authorized amendment/substitution of property under Rules 32.2(b)(2)(C) and 32.2(e).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the listed property/proceeds are forfeitable as traceable to the charged offenses	Govt: property constitutes proceeds of mail/wire fraud, health-care fraud, theft and related conspiracies and thus is forfeitable	Riddiough: (implicitly) may contest nexus/extent of traceability in a petition	Court: Found requisite nexus; property is forfeitable under the cited statutes and Rules 32.2(b)(1)-(2)
2. Whether an in personam criminal forfeiture money judgment may be entered and its amount	Govt: seeks a $453,145.30 money judgment apportioned across consolidated matters	Riddiough: (implicitly) does not prevent entry if Honeycutt compliance required	Court: Entered $453,145.30 in personam money judgment and stated it complies with Honeycutt
3. Whether the government may amend the order or substitute/add subsequently located property	Govt: requests authority to amend/substitute per Rule 32.2	Riddiough: (implicitly) could later contest specific substitutions	Court: Authorized amendment/substitution under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(C) and 32.2(e)
4. Notice and third-party claim process for forfeited property	Govt: will publish notice on forfeiture.gov and serve notice where required; third parties may petition under §853(n) within statutory timeframes	Riddiough: (implicitly) third parties may have right to petition; defendant’s rights also foreclosed in favor of government custody	Court: Ordered publication for 30 days, set petition deadlines (30 days after direct notice or 60 days after publication), and specified service and filing procedures

Key Cases Cited

Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (addressing limits and requirements for in personam criminal forfeiture judgments and allocation among defendants)