## Facts

- A Tennessee hardware store owned by Tony Honeycutt sold large quantities of an iodine-based product commonly used as a methamphetamine precursor.
- Terry Honeycutt, Tony’s brother, worked at the store as a salaried employee managing sales and inventory.
- Over roughly three years, sales of the product generated about $400,000.
- The brothers were indicted for federal drug offenses, including conspiracy to distribute a product used in meth production.
- The government sought forfeiture money judgments against each brother under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1).
- Tony pleaded guilty and agreed to forfeit $200,000.
- Terry went to trial and was convicted; the government conceded he had no ownership interest in the store and did not personally profit from the sales.
- The government nevertheless sought to hold Terry liable for the remaining $69,751.98 as a co-conspirator.

## Issues

1. Whether 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) authorizes joint-and-several forfeiture liability, permitting the government to recover from a defendant proceeds obtained by a co-conspirator but never acquired by the defendant.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit.
- Section 853(a)(1) limits forfeiture to property the defendant himself obtained, directly or indirectly, from the crime.
- Because Terry Honeycutt did not obtain the proceeds sought, § 853(a)(1) did not authorize a forfeiture money judgment against him for amounts his brother received.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1), forfeiture reaches only “proceeds the person obtained,” which requires that the defendant actually acquired the property.
- “Directly or indirectly” describes the manner of acquisition and does not eliminate the requirement that the defendant obtained the property.
- Section 853’s structure targets tainted property—property derived from or used to commit the offense—rather than property unconnected to the defendant’s gain.
- The substitute-assets provision in § 853(p) narrowly governs when the government may reach a defendant’s other property; joint-and-several forfeiture would bypass those limits.
- General conspiracy doctrines cannot supply joint-and-several forfeiture liability absent statutory text authorizing it.

## Conclusion

The Court held that 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) does not permit joint-and-several criminal forfeiture among co-conspirators; forfeiture is confined to proceeds the particular defendant actually obtained (subject only to the statute’s limited substitute-assets mechanism).


Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017)