This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (Adam G. Unikowski), according to Petitioner (Adam G. Unikowski), petitioner argues that his brother obtained roughly $270,000 from the sale of Polar Pure, while the petitioner received nothing, yet the government seeks to hold him jointly and severally liable for the entire amount.
The government contends it can seek forfeiture against co‑conspirators even when they did not directly obtain the proceeds, relying on the substitute‑assets provision of § 853(p).
According to Petitioner, the dispute centers on whether the word “obtain” in § 853(a)(1) creates joint‑and‑several liability for co‑conspirators who did not directly receive the proceeds.
Justices asked questions about the government’s theory, the meaning of “indirectly,” and the applicability of forfeiture statutes.
- [1] 018446a8339745fca86d-r1-c114cf5d33e9d856.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 018446a8339745fca86d-r1-c114cf5d33e9d856.pdf, p. 20
- [3] 018446a8339745fca86d-r1-c114cf5d33e9d856.pdf, pp. 42–43
- [4] 018446a8339745fca86d-r1-c114cf5d33e9d856.pdf, pp. 51–52
- [5] 018446a8339745fca86d-r1-c114cf5d33e9d856.pdf, p. 4
- [6] 018446a8339745fca86d-r1-c114cf5d33e9d856.pdf, p. 10
- [7] 018446a8339745fca86d-r1-c114cf5d33e9d856.pdf, p. 12
- [8] 018446a8339745fca86d-r1-c114cf5d33e9d856.pdf, p. 15
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner (Adam G. Unikowski), according to Petitioner (Adam G. Unikowski), petitioner’s brother earned about $270,000 from the sale of a product called Polar Pure, but the petitioner himself received none of that money.
According to Petitioner (Adam G. Unikowski), according to Petitioner (Adam G. Unikowski), the United States seeks to hold the petitioner jointly and severally liable for the entire $270,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 853.
According to Petitioner, the core legal question is whether the term “obtain” in § 853(a)(1) imposes joint‑and‑several liability on co‑conspirators who did not directly obtain the proceeds.
According to Government, a related issue is whether the government may rely on the substitute‑assets provision of § 853(p) to forfeit property indirectly linked to the proceeds.
What each side argues
Petitioner’s Position
According to Petitioner (Adam G. Unikowski), according to Petitioner (Adam G. Unikowski), petitioner contends that his brother, not he, obtained the $270,000, and therefore the statutory term “obtain” does not make him jointly liable.
Petitioner argues that the government’s reliance on the word “obtained” to impose liability on all conspirators is unsupported by the text, structure, history, and purpose of § 853.
Government’s Position
The government asserts that it can pursue forfeiture against co‑conspirators even when they did not directly obtain the proceeds, using the substitute‑assets provision of § 853(p).
According to Mr. Fletcher (Government), according to Mr. Fletcher (Government), the government maintains that it does not need to prove which co‑conspirator is responsible for the cash; joint‑and‑several liability applies when traceable proceeds are unavailable.
According to Mr. Fletcher (Government), according to Mr. Fletcher (Government), the government argues that invoking § 853(p) is not required; a forfeiture money judgment can be obtained when directly forfeitable property is unavailable.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked whether the government’s theory had changed regarding what is “new” or “old” in its approach.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor inquired how the Court’s ruling might affect the 1963 RICO forfeiture statute.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned whether the government had ever tried to invoke subsection (d).
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg noted that several courts of appeals appeared to be on the government’s side.
Chief Justice Roberts asked about the liability of two individuals each carrying a duffle bag.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 018446a8339745fca86d-r1-c114cf5d33e9d856.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.