United States v. Henry Asomani, 7 F.4th 749

Henry N. Asomani was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to launder money, and two counts of money laundering; Government sought forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C).
At trial Asomani requested a jury instruction on a good-faith defense to wire fraud; the district court declined to give that specific instruction.
The jury convicted Asomani on all counts; the district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment.
The district court ordered forfeiture of $381,339 in proceeds, including $91,586 listed as “miscellaneous” expenditures that a Government witness could not tie to Asomani’s personal benefit.
On appeal Asomani challenged (1) the denial of his proposed good-faith instruction and (2) inclusion of the $91,586 in the forfeiture award.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting both arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for refusal to give proposed good-faith instruction	Asomani: denial of instruction deprived him of a legal defense, so review should be de novo	Government: instruction denial did not eliminate the defense; review is abuse of discretion	Court: abuse of discretion review applies because instructions as a whole covered the mens rea element
Denial of a specific good-faith jury instruction	Asomani: requested instruction was timely, supported by evidence, and required by law	Government: the given instructions adequately covered intent and allowed defense argument	Court: no abuse of discretion; mens rea instructions sufficiently conveyed good-faith defense
Forfeiture of $91,586 listed as miscellaneous expenditures	Asomani: Government failed to prove these funds were obtained for his benefit; Honeycutt limits forfeiture to property the defendant obtained	Government: funds were in Asomani’s bank account and §981(a)(1)(C) applies to proceeds traceable to the offense	Court: affirmed forfeiture; Honeycutt not applicable and presence of funds in his account makes them proceeds under §981(a)(1)(C)

United States v. Glinn, 863 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for review of jury-instruction refusals and defenses)
United States v. King, 898 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion review when instructions as a whole cover mens rea/good faith)
United States v. Young, 613 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review where refusal denied an affirmative defense)
United States v. Gilmore, 968 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2020) (no error where overall instructions adequately present defense theory)
United States v. Brown, 478 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2007) (good-faith instruction unnecessary when specific intent instruction suffices)
United States v. Sanders, 834 F.2d 717 (8th Cir. 1987) (same)
United States v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216 (8th Cir. 1985) (defendants entitled to specific instruction only if substance not covered by others)
United States v. Nance, 502 F.2d 615 (8th Cir. 1974) (mens rea instruction can make good faith an absolute defense)
United States v. Mathews, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (defendant entitled to instruction on any recognized defense supported by evidence)
Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (limits joint/several forfeiture under §853 to property the defendant obtained)
United States v. Peithman, 917 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2019) (government must prove forfeiture amount by preponderance; §981(a)(1)(C) scope)