284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ("[T]he test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.”), John Buchanan's sentences under counts five and six do not violate double jeopardy principles. We also reject John Buchanan's contention that the imposition of a civil forfeiture penalty, the loss of a 1985 Mercedes and a 1988 Jaguar, constituted double jeopardy and violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines. As we have previously held, the forfeiture of drug proceeds does not constitute punishment, and thus neither the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines nor double jeopardy analysis is applicable. 465 (7th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 669, 130
holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture holding that vindictive prosecution claims in civil forfeiture proceeding may raise due process questions holding that as a nonparty torres was not at risk in the forfeiture proceeding holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding