United States v. Jones, 2:15-cr-00174

Michael Jones pled guilty in two consolidated matters: an 11‑count superseding indictment (Case No. 2:15‑CR‑174) charging conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and ten wire‑fraud counts, and a 1‑count criminal information (Case No. 2:18‑CR‑023) charging conspiracy related to the Scott matter.
The government established a nexus between the offenses and the property identified in the plea agreements and forfeiture allegations, under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b).
The specific assets listed for forfeiture included $50,018.53 and $8,252.04 (as identified in the superseding indictment) and an in personam criminal forfeiture money judgment of $4,423,122.35, allocated $3,574,992.35 to Jones (Jones matter) and $848,130 to the Scott matter.
The order directs seizure of the property, vests all of Jones’s interests in the United States, and authorizes amendment of the forfeiture order to include subsequently located or substitute property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(e).
The court expressly found the money judgment complies with Honeycutt v. United States and required publication on www.forfeiture.gov for at least 30 days (or direct notice if property value is under $1,000), and set claim deadlines and service requirements (petitions filed within 30 days of notice or 60 days after publication; serve the AUSA listed).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nexus for forfeiture	Government: plea agreement and record show property is proceeds/traceable to fraud offenses	Jones: no contrary contest in plea; did not successfully dispute nexus	Court: found requisite nexus and ordered forfeiture
Entry of in personam money judgment	Government: seek $4,423,122.35 judgment split between matters and apply seized property toward it	Jones: (by plea) accepted judgment terms; no successful challenge to amount in this order	Court: entered money judgment as requested and applied limits per allocation (not joint and several)
Compliance with Honeycutt limits	Government: money judgment as imposed complies with Honeycutt	Jones: could have argued limits on forfeiture of substitute/third‑party property under Honeycutt	Court: expressly found the money judgment complies with Honeycutt
Notice and claims procedure	Government: publish notice on forfeiture.gov 30 days (or serve identified claimants) and set 30/60‑day filing deadlines; require petition under penalty of perjury and service on AUSA	Potential claimants: must file timely petition to contest; may assert interest	Court: ordered publication/notice, prescribed filing deadlines, and required service on Asset Forfeiture Unit

Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (addresses limits on forfeiture and treatment of substitute property and in personam money judgments)