United States v. Hampton, No. 13-5014 (6th Cir. 2013)Annotate this Case
Hampton was charged with wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 (18 counts), access device fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(5) (four counts), and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1)), based on use of fraudulent merchant accounts, ACH payments, and credit card transactions. The government sought forfeiture of substitute property. Hampton’s Rule 11 Plea Agreement provided that, with dismissal of remaining charges, Hampton would plead guilty to one count each of wire fraud and access device fraud, and included a stipulation that her conduct involved intended losses of $141,769.77 and estimated actual losses of $77,312.86. Hampton agreed to restitution of actual losses and to entry of a judgment of forfeiture of approximately $77,312.86. Because she had insufficient resources to pay restitution, the parties agreed that any assets located through forfeiture would be applied to the victims and the forfeiture reduced accordingly. Because no specific assets derived from the proceeds were identified, the requirements for forfeiture of substitute assets under 21 U.S.C. 853(p) were established. After it was determined that the amount of actual loss was $69,540.01, the district court ordered mandatory restitution in the corrected amount and imposed concurrent (below-Guidelines) sentences of 18 months of imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that a forfeiture money judgment may not be entered against future assets.