justice
Fourth Circuit revives $3.6 million forfeiture judgment in Mhana case
The Fourth Circuit kept Mhana’s convictions for money laundering, conspiracy and transporting stolen goods in place. It also revived a $3,649,033 money judgment the district court had declined to enter.
Rami Mhana’s criminal convictions survived appeal, but the financial side of the case did not end there. The Fourth Circuit reversed the forfeiture ruling and sent the case back for entry of a forfeiture judgment, including a $3.649 million money judgment.
- Convictions for money laundering, conspiracy and stolen goods all stand.
- The Fourth Circuit rejected Mhana’s evidence challenge.
- The government won a remand on forfeiture.
- The property issue goes back to district court.
- A federal appeals court in the Fourth Circuit kept Rami Mhana’s convictions in place on May 12, 2026, including money laundering, conspiracy and transportation of stolen goods
A federal appeals court in the Fourth Circuit kept Rami Mhana’s convictions in place on May 12, 2026, including money laundering, conspiracy and transportation of stolen goods. But the panel also reversed the forfeiture ruling and sent the case back for entry of a forfeiture judgment. For Mhana, the criminal verdicts remain. For the government, the property fight is still alive.
That split result matters because forfeiture is the part of a criminal case that can reach beyond prison time and strip away property tied to the offense.
Why the convictions stayed
Mhana’s appeal focused on trial rulings admitting documents into evidence, not on a broader attack on the case. The Fourth Circuit said those objections did not justify undoing the convictions, and any error involving some of the challenged invoices was harmless in light of the other proof at trial.
The case involved cash purchases of fraudulently obtained Apple iPhones and other electronics that were then shipped in bulk to overseas buyers. On that record, the panel said the jury’s verdict could stand.
The money question comes back
The government’s cross-appeal is what changed the outcome on the financial side. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of forfeiture and sent the case back for entry of a forfeiture judgment.
That leaves the convictions settled for now, but not the government’s bid to reach property tied to the crimes. The case returns to district court to finish that part of the judgment.