justice
A $3.6 million forfeiture fight is back in Rami Mhana’s case
The Fourth Circuit left the money laundering and stolen-goods convictions in place. It said the lower court wrongly stopped short of ordering forfeiture after a trial over fraudulently obtained electronics.
The convictions in Rami Mhana’s case remain intact, but the money at stake does not. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s forfeiture ruling and remanded for entry of a forfeiture judgment.
- His convictions for money laundering, conspiracy and stolen-goods transportation still stand.
- The Fourth Circuit revived the government's forfeiture request.
- The case goes back to the district court for a forfeiture judgment.
- For Rami Mhana, the convictions stay intact
- For the money tied to the case, the fight is back on
For Rami Mhana, the convictions stay intact. For the money tied to the case, the fight is back on. The Fourth Circuit, in a federal appeal from Charlotte, North Carolina, affirmed his convictions for money laundering, conspiracy and transportation of stolen goods, but reversed the district court's refusal to order forfeiture.
Mhana had challenged only the trial judge's decision to admit certain documents into evidence. The panel rejected that argument. The government, meanwhile, won its cross-appeal, which means the financial side of the case does not end with the verdict.
The convictions held
The appeal Mhana brought was narrow. He did not ask the court to undo the jury's verdict on the crimes themselves. He argued instead that the district court should not have let certain records into evidence.
The Fourth Circuit was not persuaded. The convictions remain in place, and the criminal case on that side of the ledger is over for now.
The money goes back before the judge
Forfeiture is the part that can reach the proceeds of a crime, not just confirm guilt. That is why the government's cross-appeal mattered: it asked the court to make sure any gains tied to the offense did not stay in Mhana's hands.
The panel said the district court should have ordered forfeiture and sent the case back for entry of a forfeiture judgment. The result leaves Mhana convicted, but not with the forfeiture dispute resolved in his favor.