United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A.’s Empirical Analysis
46 F.3d 1185 · 1995
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 45 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca (1995), Hamid v. Price Waterhouse & Nt & Sa (1995)
19 federal appellate · 45 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Healy v. Commissioner · United States v. Reckmeyer · United States v. Lavin · United States v. Campos · United States v. Schwimmer
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If, after the hearing, the court determines that the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that— (A) the petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property, and such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid in whole or in part because the right, title, or interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant or was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under this section; or (B) the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of the right, title, or interest in the property and was at the time of purchase reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section; the court shall amend the order of forfeiture in accordance with its determination. 2”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] general creditor can never have an interest in specific forfeited property ... Were it otherwise, the court litigating the forfeiture issue would be converted into a bankruptcy court and would not be able to grant forfeiture to the government until it determined that no general creditor would be unable to satisfy its claim against the defendant.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“bank depositors, as general creditors, have no interest in the specific accounts to which their deposits might be traced, only in the defendant's estate as a whole--and therefore can have no interest in particular assets forfeited, as required under both prongs of § 1963(l )(6), unless they have already secured a judgment against the debtor and perfected a lien against a particular item.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.