we read the statute, enacted eight years after Congress last amended 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), as a “bridge” or “gap-filler” between civil and criminal forfeiture, in that it permits criminal forfeiture when no criminal forfeiture provision applies to the crime charged against a particular defendant but civil forfeiture for that charged crime is nonetheless authorized. Accordingly, under our reading, § 2461(c) permits criminal forfeiture for general mail fraud because (1) 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) authorizes civil forfeiture for general mail fraud; and (2) no statutory provision specifically authorizes criminal forfeiture for general mail fraud. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d at 199 (internal citation, footnote omitted). See also United States v. Jennings, 487 F.3d 564, 584-85 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). We find support for this reading of the
holding direct misrepresentations were not required for mail fraud conviction holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding that  2461 allows for criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of general mail fraud holding that 28 usc  2461c authorizes criminal forfeiture of proceeds from general mail fraud via 18 usc  981a1c recognizing criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment