IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

EASTERN DIVISION



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, No. CR 95-2014-MWB
vs.

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY ON FORFEITURE

SCOTT E. HILDEBRAND,
Defendant.

____________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION

NO. 2 - FORFEITURE LAW

NO. 3 - ELEMENTS OF FORFEITURE

NO. 4 - BURDEN OF PROOF

VERDICT FORM

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION

Before you may be discharged from service, I must ask you to render a special verdict. With respect to this verdict, just like the verdicts that you have already rendered, my previous instructions regarding credibility of witnesses and duty to deliberate apply. You should consider all of my previous instructions as a whole along with these additional instructions.

In Count 44, the indictment seeks the forfeiture of up to $1,352,736.00 from the defendant. Because you have found defendant Scott E. Hildebrand guilty of Count 43, you must now determine if the money described in the indictment, if any of it, should be forfeited to the United States.



FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - FORFEITURE LAW

Under federal criminal law, any person who is convicted of violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h) shall be required to forfeit to the United States any property that was involved in the money laundering conspiracy for which that person has been convicted.

In this case, the grand jury has alleged that the property involved in the money laundering conspiracy set out in Count 43 is up to $1,352,736.00 and all interest and proceeds traceable thereto. This money is listed on a special verdict form which will be furnished to you.

It is your duty to determine what amount of money, if any, shall be forfeited under the indictment.



FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - ELEMENTS OF FORFEITURE

Title 18, United States Code, Section 982, the statute involved in the forfeiture portion of the indictment, provides as follows:

The court . . . shall order any person convicted of a money laundering offense to forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property.

In order to establish the forfeiture of property charged in the indictment, the burden is on the government to establish by the preponderance of the evidence each of the following elements:

One, that the defendant owned or had an interest in some or all of the specific property alleged in the forfeiture portion of the indictment at the time of the money laundering violation; and

Two, that some or all of the specific property was involved in or is traceable to property involved in the defendant's violation of the money laundering laws.

The government must prove both of these essential elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If you unanimously find that the government has proved each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, fill out the amount of money that you find should be forfeited and place a check mark in the line after the description of that property on the Forfeiture Verdict Form.

If you unanimously find that the government has failed to prove both elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then check the line after the statement that the property is not subject to forfeiture.

Some of the terms in this instruction are further explained as follows:

The term "property involved" includes three types of property:

(1) the money or other property being laundered;

(2) Any property used to facilitate the laundering offense;

(3) any property traceable to (1) or (2).

The property being "laundered" includes any property that was the subject of the financial transaction that was the basis for the money laundering charge for which the defendant has been found guilty.



FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - BURDEN OF PROOF

It is the government's burden to establish the forfeitability of any piece of property by a preponderance of the evidence. This is different from the standard that applied to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. At that stage of the case, the government was required to meet its burden beyond a reasonable doubt. At the forfeiture stage, however, the government need only establish the elements of the forfeiture allegation by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a lesser burden.

To establish something by a "preponderance of the evidence" means to prove that something is more likely so than not so. In other words, a preponderance of the evidence in the case means such evidence as, when considered and compared with that opposed to it, has more convincing force. It is evidence that produces in your minds belief that what is sought to be proved is more likely true than not true. This rule does not, of course, require proof to an absolute certainty, since proof to an absolute certainty is seldom possible in any case.



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, No. CR 95-2014-MWB
vs.

VERDICT FORM

SCOTT E. HILDEBRAND,
Defendant.

____________________



We, the Jury, return this Forfeiture Verdict as to the ownership interests of defendant Scott E. Hildebrand in up to $1,352,736.00 alleged in the indictment to be subject to forfeiture to the United States:

We, the Jury, find the property in the amount of $__________ is subject to forfeiture. ________



We, the Jury, find the property is not subject to forfeiture. __________





_____________

DATE



_____________________________ ____________________________

FOREPERSON JUROR



____________________________ ____________________________

JUROR JUROR



____________________________ ____________________________

JUROR JUROR





____________________________ ____________________________

JUROR JUROR



____________________________ ____________________________

JUROR JUROR



____________________________ ____________________________

JUROR JUROR