United States v. Randy Beltramea, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3586

Background

Randy Beltramea pled guilty (2013) to multiple counts including wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, money laundering (Counts 4 and 7), false statements to a bank, and tax evasion; district court sentenced him and ordered forfeiture of real property (Castlerock).
Castlerock consisted of Parcels A and B, later described in the indictment as four tracts (developed portion of Parcel B, Outlot A of Parcel B, undeveloped portion of Parcel B, undeveloped portion of Parcel A).
On initial appeal (Beltramea I), this Court affirmed the sentence but vacated and remanded the forfeiture order because the record lacked factual findings establishing the required nexus between certain tracts and the convictions.
On remand, after an evidentiary hearing, the government abandoned some tracts and presented evidence tying two investments ($50,000 and $75,000) to payments for work by Abode Construction on both Parcels A and B and to payments on a loan secured by the whole property.
The district court found Castlerock central to Beltramea’s fraud and money‑laundering scheme and concluded the government proved, by a preponderance, the requisite nexus under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) to forfeit the entire Castlerock property.
Beltramea appealed the forfeiture order, arguing lack of nexus for parts of the property, misapplication of the mandate, and various evidentiary errors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Beltramea)	Defendant's Argument (United States)	Held
Whether the government proved nexus between the forfeited property and money‑laundering convictions under § 982(a)(1)	Government failed to show laundered funds benefited the undeveloped tracts or entire property	Castlerock was the purpose of the fraud; laundered funds paid contractor and loan obligations benefiting Parcels A and B	Forfeiture affirmed: district court’s finding of requisite nexus was not clearly erroneous
Whether property should be subdivided into smaller tracts for proportional forfeiture	Forfeiture should be limited to specific tracts where tainted funds were shown to be spent	The instrument creating Beltramea’s ownership treats Castlerock as unified property; court cannot subdivide for proportional forfeiture	Court may order forfeiture only of the entire property interest defined by the ownership instrument; subdivision rejected
Whether this is an “involved in” vs “traceable to” § 982(a)(1) case and whether government waived the “involved in” theory	Government waived “involved in” theory; only traceability could apply to some tracts	Castlerock was used to facilitate the laundering; it was "involved in" the offenses	Court accepts “involved in” theory here; property used to facilitate laundering sufficed
Whether district court exceeded scope of prior appellate mandate (law of the case)	Prior opinion precluded forfeiture of undeveloped tracts	Remand required further fact‑finding; no preclusive holding that bars forfeiture	Court rejects law‑of‑the‑case claim; remand allowed district court to make findings and it did

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Myers, 21 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 1994) (payments with laundered money toward real‑estate contract/improvements can make the property forfeitable as "involved in" the offense)
United States v. Hull, 606 F.3d 524 (8th Cir. 2010) (the instrument creating a defendant’s interest defines the property subject to criminal forfeiture; courts may not subdivide that property for proportional forfeiture)
United States v. Hawkey, 148 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 1998) (distinguishes property "involved in" an offense from property "traceable to" the offense and explains facilitation test)
United States v. Bieri, 21 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 1994) (owner’s subjective subdivision of property does not control what constitutes the forfeitable property)
United States v. Ways, 832 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard that appellate review of district court forfeiture findings is for clear error)