Does § 981(a)(1)(C) permit the entry of an in personam money judgment in lieu of tainted property?

Questions Presented Brandi Channon and Matthew Channon manipulated OfficeMax’s customer loyalty program to fraudulently obtain OfficeMax rewards. During the scheme, the couple redeemed $105,191 in OfficeMax rewards by purchasing gift cards and office products from OfficeMax. Although the Channons were still in possession of at least some of the items purchased with the rewards at the time of their arrest, the government sought an in personam money judgment forfeiture order in the amount of the redeemed OfficeMax rewards. The district court granted the government’s motion and ordered that an in personam money judgment, imposed jointly and severally, be issued against the Channons in the amount of $105,191. The statutory foundation for the forfeiture order was 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). This case presents two questions worthy of this Court’s review: 1) Does § 981(a)(1)(C) permit the entry of an in personam money judgment in lieu of tainted property? 2) Does § 981(a)(1)(C) permit joint and several liability? il