United States v. Jian-Yun Dong, 17-4268

Dr. Jian‑Yun Dong was convicted after a 2015 bench trial of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), theft of government property (18 U.S.C. § 641), and 22 counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343).
At sentencing Judge Hendricks imposed 70 months’ imprisonment and a forfeiture money judgment of $3,211,599.38, assessed jointly and severally against Dong and his corporate co‑defendants.
Dong appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the indictment did not allege a crime, that investigatory and procedural defects required reversal (challenging a search‑warrant affidavit and judicial recusal), and that the forfeiture order is invalid under Honeycutt v. United States.
Honeycutt (137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017)) held § 853(a)(1) requires proof the defendant personally “obtained” the forfeited proceeds and therefore forbids imposing forfeiture on a joint‑and‑several basis when the defendant did not personally obtain the assets.
A circuit split exists over whether Honeycutt’s rule extends to civil forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C); some circuits decline to extend it on textual grounds while others do extend it.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed Dong’s convictions, vacated the forfeiture judgment as to Dong, and remanded for further proceedings to address forfeiture in light of Honeycutt because the district court made no factual findings about Dong’s dominion or control over the proceeds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether misuse of grant/contract funds can form the basis of federal fraud offenses	Government: federal fraud statutes broadly encompass schemes that misuse grant funds	Dong: using contract funds inconsistently with grant terms is not a crime	Court: Affirmed — statutes apply and convictions stand
Validity of search‑warrant affidavit	Government: affidavit provided probable cause and complied with Fourth Amendment	Dong: affidavit had deficiencies undermining warrant	Court: Warrant and affidavit were valid; no Fourth Amendment violation
Judge Norton’s recusal before verdict	Government: judge need not recuse; proceedings were fair	Dong: district judge should have recused prior to verdict	Court: No error in failing to recuse; affirmed
Validity of joint‑and‑several forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) post‑Honeycutt	Government: § 981(a)(1)(C) does not contain §853’s “the person obtained” language — Honeycutt may not apply; or district can show defendant obtained/controlled proceeds	Dong: Honeycutt requires proof he personally obtained proceeds; joint-and-several forfeiture invalid	Court: Vacated forfeiture as to Dong and remanded for proceedings consistent with Honeycutt because record lacks findings on Dong’s personal acquisition/dominion over proceeds; convictions otherwise affirmed

Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (SCOTUS: §853(a)(1) requires proof defendant personally obtained forfeited proceeds; joint and several liability improper)
United States v. Peithman, 917 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2019) (refused to extend Honeycutt to §981(a)(1)(C) based on textual differences)
United States v. Sexton, 894 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2018) (declined to apply Honeycutt to §981 forfeiture)
United States v. Thompson, 990 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2021) (applied Honeycutt to §981 forfeitures)
United States v. Gjeli, 867 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2017) (held Honeycutt bars joint‑and‑several liability under §981)
Saccoccia v. United States, 955 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2020) (assumed Honeycutt applied and upheld forfeiture where defendant controlled proceeds)
United States v. Bane, 948 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) (assumed Honeycutt applied and affirmed forfeiture based on ownership/control findings)
United States v. Jergensen, [citation="797 F. App'x 4"] (2d Cir. 2019) (assumed Honeycutt applied and affirmed forfeiture where executives approved transfers, showing acquisition)
United States v. Peters, 732 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2014) (individual can indirectly obtain corporate proceeds by so controlling the corporation that corporate funds are effectively under individual’s control)
United States v. Chittenden, 896 F.3d 633 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussed textual parallels between §853 and other forfeiture statutes; not deciding Honeycutt’s extension to §981)