United States v. Millberg Weiss LLP, CR 05-587(D) JFW (C.D. Cal. 2008)

Government sought over $200 million in class action suit fees obtained by law firm through improper use of family members and associates of partners as named plaintiffs; case was settled for a much smaller amount.

United States v. Brooks. No. 2:06-cr-00550-JS-ETB (E.D.N.Y.).

Insider trading and corporate looting prosecution in which government sought forfeiture of $190 million, but court reduced amount of forfeiture to $67 million.

U.S. v. Isai Scheinberg et al. No. S3 10 Cr. 336-LAK (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Criminal case against executives of three leading online poker companies

United States v. PokerStars, et al. No. 1:11-cv-2564-LBS (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Civil forfeiture and civil money laundering penalty case against three leading online poker companies based on allegations that, among other things, they deceived U.S. banks into processing billions of dollars in allegedly illegal online poker payments;

U.S. v. S.A.C. Capital Advisers, L.P., 13 Civ. 5182 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2013)

(Stipulation and Order of Settlement, Doc. 50). Mr. Smith consulted with two large New York law firms that settled this civil forfeiture action and the related criminal prosecution for a total financial penalty of $1.8 billion, which consisted of a $900 million fine and a civil forfeiture of $900 million.

United States v. Mohammed Sani Abacha. [2014] EWHC 993 (Comm).

Mr. Smith submitted his expert opinion on American forfeiture law on behalf of Blue Holding, Ltd., in a proceeding by the United States seeking a continuation of a restraint order previously entered ex parte by another justice of the High Court of Justice

United States v. All Assets Listed in Attachment A,89 F.Supp.3d 813 (E.D. Va. 2015)

(opinion and order granting motion to strike claims on basis of fugitive disentitlement statute), aff’d sub nom., United States v. Batato, 833 F.3d 419 (4th Cir. 2016).

United States v. Emor, 785 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

Reversing and remanding for a hearing on SunRise Academy’s third party petition, holding that SunRise had both Article III and statutory standing based on its claim that defendant Emor, its former chief, embezzled $2 million of the school’s funds;

Luis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1083, 194 L.Ed. 2d 256 (2016).

The Supreme Court held that “the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment.”