The $14 million stolen from JPMorgan is a proper measure of restitution for which Dobruna may be jointly and severally liable. See United States v. Nucci, 364 F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir.2004). But a forfeiture order would defy the purpose and spirit of forfeiture law. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Government’s request is DENIED. SO ORDERED. 1 , Although 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) is a civil forfeiture statute, it has been integrated into criminal proceedings via 28 U.S.C. §'2461(c), which authorizes a court to order forfeiture of property as part of a criminal sentence. 2 . The presence of a criminal conspiracy adds nuance to these forfeiture rules, and it is true that Dobruna’s crime touched on a conspiracy. See United States v. Fruchter, 411 F.3d 377, 384 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). However, Do-bruna was convicted only of the
holding that an individual conspirator may be ordered to forfeit all of the proceeds derived from the criminal enterprise he participated in holding municipal police department to be an enterprise within meaning of hobbs act holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances holding that in interpreting a contract the actual purpose and intent of the parties must be derived