legitimate funds, is subject to forfeiture. Other courts have reached this same, sensible result. In the words of the Eleventh Circuit: As to a wrongdoer, any amount of the invested proceeds traceable to drug proceeds forfeits the entire property. We have never held that as to a wrongdoer only the funds traceable to illegal activities may be forfeited. If one is an innocent owner, no amount of that person’s or entity’s funds are forfeitable. On the other hand, if one is a wrongdoer, the full value of the ... property is forfeitable because some of the funds invested are traceable as the statute dictates. United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 15608 85th Avenue, 933 F.2d 976, 981-82 (11th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Santoro, 866 F.2d 1538, 1542 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. All Monies In Account No.
holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to consider whether the arrest was illegal and whether the consent was tainted by the potentially illegal police activity holding that money seized from a bank account must be traceable to illegal activity in order to be subject to forfeiture even if account previously contained proceeds of illegal activity holding to be forfeitable all property connected with the facilitation of illegal activity holding that a pattern of racketeering activity required multiple illegal schemes holding that countersurveillance driving is a fact indicative of illegal activity