BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó







                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                            Senator Loni Hancock, Chair              S
                             2011-2012 Regular Session               B

                                                                     1
                                                                     1
                                                                     3
          SB 1133 (Leno)                                             3
          As Amended April 18, 2012
          Hearing date:  April 24, 2012
          Penal Code
          JM:mc

                   HUMAN TRAFFICKING OF MINORS FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES:

              FORFEITURE OF INSTRUMENTALITIES AND PROFITS OF THE CRIME  


                                       HISTORY

          Source:  Attorney General of California

          Prior Legislation: AB 90 (Swanson) - Ch. 457, Stats. 2011
                       AB 12 (Swanson) - Ch. 75, Stats. 2011
                       SB 677 (Yee) - Ch. 635, Stats. 2010
                       AB 17 (Swanson) - Ch. 211, Stats. 2009
                       SB 22 (Lieber) - Ch. 240, Stats. 2005

          Support: Crime Victims United of California

          Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union


          (NOTE:  THIS BILL IS ANALYZED AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED IN 
          COMMITTEE TO CORRECT A DRAFTING ERROR.  SEE COMMENT #5 FOR AN 
          EXPLANATION.)


                                         KEY ISSUE
           




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageB

          SHOULD PROPERTY THAT WAS PUT TO SUBSTANTIAL USE FOR FACILITATING 
            HUMAN TRAFFICKING OF MINORS FOR COMMERCIAL SEXUAL ACTS, AND 
          PROCEEDS OF SUCH ACTIVITY, BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE UPON 
          CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING?


                                       PURPOSE

          The purposes of this bill are to 1) provide that where a person 
          is convicted of human trafficking of a minor for sexual 
          purposes, the instrumentalities used to commit the crime, as 
          specified, and the profits of the crime shall be forfeited; and 
          2) provide that 50% of the forfeiture proceeds shall be 
          distributed to the Victim-Witness Assistance Fund for grants to 
          community organizations serving human trafficking victims and 
          50% of the proceeds shall be distributed to the General Fund of 
          the state or county, depending on whether the Attorney General 
          or district attorney prosecuted the matter. 

           Existing law  includes numerous crimes concerning sexual 
          exploitation of minors for commercial purposes.  These crimes 
          include:

                 Pimping:  Deriving income from the earnings of a 
               prostitute, deriving income from a place of prostitution, 
               or receiving compensation for soliciting a prostitute.  
               Where the victim is a minor under the age of 16, the crime 
               is punishable by a prison term of three, six or eight 
               years.  (Pen. Code § 266h, subds. (a)-(b).)

                 Pandering:  Procuring another for prostitution, inducing 
               another to become a prostitute, procuring another person to 
               be placed in a house of prostitution, persuading a person 
               to remain in a house of prostitution, procuring another for 
               prostitution by fraud, duress or abuse of authority, and 
               commercial exchange for procurement.  (Pen. Code § 266i,
               subd. (a).)

                 Procurement:  Transporting or providing a child under 16 
               to another person for purposes of any lewd or lascivious 




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageC

               act.  The crime is punishable by a prison term of three, 
               six, or eight years, and by a fine not to exceed $15,000.  
               (Pen. Code § 266j.)

                 Taking a minor from her or his parents or guardian for 
               purposes of prostitution.  This is a felony punishable by a 
               prison term of 16 months, two years, or three years and a 
               fine of up to $2,000.  (Pen. Code § 267.)

                 Child pornography production:   Using a minor to assist 
               in the making of child pornography for commercial purposes 
               is a felony, with a prison term of 3, 6, or 8 years.  (Pen. 
               Code § 311.4, subd. (b).)

           Existing law  provides that any person who deprives or violates 
          the personal liberty of another with the intent to effect or 
          maintain a felony violation of specified prostitution related 
          offenses, use of minor in producing or distributing obscene 
          material or child pornography, extortion, or to obtain forced 
          labor or services, is guilty of human trafficking.  (Pen. Code § 
          236.1, subd. (a).)

           Existing law  provides that a victim of human trafficking may 
          bring a civil lawsuit for actual damages, compensatory damages, 
          punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, 
          or any other appropriate relief.  In such a lawsuit, the 
          plaintiff may be awarded up to three times his or her actual 
          damages or $10,000, whichever is greater.  In addition, punitive 
          damages may also be awarded upon proof of the defendant's 
          malice, oppression, fraud, or duress in committing the act of 
          human trafficking.  (Civ. Code § 52.5.)  

           Existing law  provides that where the victim of human trafficking 
          is an adult, the offense is punishable by a prison term of 3, 4 
          or 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.  (Pen. Code § 
          236.1, subd. (b).)

           Existing law  provides that if the person trafficked is a minor, 
          the offense is punishable by 4, 6 or 8 years in prison and a 
          fine of up to $10,000.  Where the minor was trafficked for a 




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageD

          commercial sex act, the maximum fine is $100,000.  (Pen. Code § 
          236.1, subd. (g).)

           Existing law  provides that all fines imposed for human 
          trafficking shall be deposited in the Victim-Witness Assistance 
          to fund services for human trafficking victims.  At least 50% of 
          such fines shall be granted to community-based organizations.  
          (Pen. Code § 236.1, subd. (h).)

           Existing law defines  "unlawful deprivation of liberty" includes 
          sustained and substantial restriction of another's liberty 
          accomplished through fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, 
          menace or a credible threat of injury to the victim or another 
          person.  (Pen. Code § 186.22, subd. (d).)

           Existing law includes the criminal profiteering asset forfeiture 
          law.  Criminal profiteering forfeiture applies where the 
          defendant is convicted of a specified offense and the defendant 
          has engaged in a pattern of criminal profiteering activity, as 
          specified.  (Pen. Code § 186.3.)  The following assets or 
          property is subject to forfeiture:

                 Any property interest whether tangible or intangible, 
               acquired through a pattern of criminal profiteering 
               activity.
                 All proceeds of a pattern of criminal profiteering 
               activity, which property shall include all things of value 
               that may have been received in exchange for the proceeds 
               immediately derived from the pattern of criminal 
               profiteering activity.
           
          Existing law  states that forfeited cash and proceeds of the sale 
          of forfeited property shall be distributed as follows: 

                 To the bona fide or innocent purchaser, conditional 
               sales vendor, or holder of a valid lien, mortgage, or 
               security interest, up to the amount of his or her interest 
               in the property or proceeds, as specified.
                 To the Department of General Services or local 
               governmental entity for all expenditures incurred in 




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageE

               connection with the sale of the forfeited property.
                 To the State General Fund or the general fund of the 
               local governmental entity, whichever prosecutes (Pen. Code 
               § 186.8), except in the child pornography or recycling 
               fraud cases.
                 In a case of fraud involving the state recycling 
               program, to a special fund designated in the Public 
               Resources Code.
                 In the case of child pornography crimes, to the county 
               children's trust fund or State Children's Trust Fund.
                 In a case involving human trafficking of minors for 
               purposes of prostitution or lewd conduct, or a case of 
               procurement of a minor, to the Victim-Witness Assistance 
               Fund for child sexual exploitation and abuse counseling and 
               prevention programs.  Fifty percent of the funds shall be 
               granted to community-based organizations that serve minor 
               victims of human trafficking.
             
          Existing law  includes human trafficking (Pen. Code § 236.1) in 
          the list of crimes for which a forfeiture of assets can be 
          sought for criminal profiteering.  (Pen. Code § 186.2, subd. 
          (a)(28).)

           Existing law  includes abduction or procurement by fraudulent 
          inducement for prostitution to the list of crimes for which a 
          forfeiture of assets can be sought for criminal profiteering.  
          (Pen. Code § 186.2, subd. (a)(31).) 


           Existing law  provides that any case in which the defendant 
          persuaded, induced, coerced or forced  a minor to engage in a 
          commercial sex act can be the basis of criminal profiteering 
          asset forfeiture, as specified.  (Pen. Code § 186.2, subd. 
          (a)(29).)

           Existing law  provides that the proceeds of criminal profiteering 
          in cases of commercial sexual exploitation of minors, as 
          specified, shall be distributed to the Victim-Witness Assistance 
          Fund for child sexual exploitation and abuse counseling and 
          prevention programs.  Fifty percent of the funds shall be 




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageF

          granted to community-based organizations that serve minor 
          victims of human trafficking.  (Pen. Code § 186.2, subd. 
          (a)(30).)

           Existing law  defines a commercial sex act as sexual conduct for 
          which anything of value is given or received by any person.  
          (Pen. Code § 186.2, subd. (a)(29)-(30).)

           This bill  provides that where a person has been convicted of 
          sexual trafficking of a minor, the interest of the defendant in 
          a vehicle, boat, airplane, money negotiable securities, real 
          property, or other thing of value "that was put to substantial 
          use for the purpose of facilitating" that crime shall be seized 
          and forfeited.

           This bill  provides the following property shall not be subject 
          to forfeiture: 

                 Real property used as a family residence or for other 
               lawful purposes, or that is owned by two or more persons, 
               one of whom had no knowledge of its use to facilitate sex 
               trafficking of minor.

                 Interest in a passenger motor vehicle, as specified,<1> 
               if there is a community property interest in the vehicle by 
               a person other than the defendant and the vehicle is the 
               sole passenger vehicle for the defendant's immediate 
               family.

           This bill  provides that real property subject to forfeiture 
          cannot, absent exigent circumstances, be seized without notice 
          ---------------------------
          <1> The bill refers to vehicles that may be driven with either a 
          Class C (two axle passenger vehicle or specified agricultural 
          vehicle), M1 (motorcycle) or M2 (moped) license, as described in 
          Vehicle Code Section "12804."  Section 12804 was repealed in 
          1993.  It appears that the provisions in former Vehicle Code 
          Section 12804 describing the classes of drivers' licenses now 
          appear in Section 12804.9, subdivision (b)(3)-(5).)  This error 
          also appears in the drug asset forfeiture law, Health and Safety 
          Code Section 11470, subd. (e).)



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageG

          to interested parties and a judicial hearing to determine 
          whether or not seizure is necessary to protect the property 
          pending resolution of the case.  The prosecutor shall have the 
          burden to establish probable cause for the seizure.

           This bill  describes the procedures for filing and litigating the 
          forfeiture action:

                 The prosecutor files the forfeiture petition in the 
               court where the human trafficking charges are pending.
                 The prosecutor gives notice to all persons who may have 
               an interest in the affected property.  The notice shall 
               inform the person how to affirm or deny the prosecutor's 
               allegations and how the person may assert a claim to the 
               property.
                 The prosecutor shall file a lis pendens<2> as to any 
               real property, as specified.
              A person may file a verified claim as to any property 
               within 30 days of notice or the person shall default.

           This bill  provides that if the defendant denies the petition 
          allegations, the forfeiture action shall be heard in the court 
          where the underlying human trafficking case is tried. 

                 If the defendant is found guilty, the forfeiture matter 
               shall be promptly tried to the jury that heard the criminal 
               case, a new jury, or the court upon waiver by the parties 
               of a jury trial.
                 The prosecutor has the burden to prove beyond a 
               reasonable doubt that the property is subject to 
               forfeiture.

           This bill  provides that the court may grant the prosecutor's 
          request to preserve property alleged to be subject to 
          forfeiture:

                 The court may issue an injunction to prohibit sale or 
               transfer of the property.

             --------------------------
          <2> Formal notice of pending legal action involving real 
          property.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageH

                 The court may appoint a receiver to take possession of 
               and manage the property.
                 The court may not make such orders without probable 
               cause and the court must give interested parties notice and 
               an opportunity to be heard on the matter.
                 The court may order a surety bond to protect the 
               property and parties; and the court shall protect the 
               interests of person who were involved in the same 
               enterprise as the defendant, but who were not involved in 
               human trafficking.

           This bill  provides that if the jury or court finds that the 
          defendant was engaged in human trafficking of a minor for sexual 
          commerce and that the property is forfeitable, the property 
          shall be forfeited and distributed, as specified.

           This bill  provides that if the property is subject to 
          forfeiture, but that a person holding a specified valid lien 
          interest in the property had no knowledge of the use of the 
          property in trafficking, the person may pay to the state the 
          difference between his or her interest and interest of the 
          registered owner of the property and thereby obtain the 
          property.  

           This bill  provides that the proceeds of forfeited property shall 
          be distributed as follows:

                 To the innocent purchaser or holder of a specified 
               security interest, up to the amount of the person's 
               interest.
                 To the applicable government entity for the costs of 
               selling the property.
                 50% to the General Fund of the state or county, 
               depending on whether the Attorney General or the district 
               attorney prosecuted the case. 
                 50% to the Victim-Witness Assistance Fund for grants, as 
               specified, to community-based organizations that serve 
               human trafficking victims.

           This bill  provides that in a proceeding involving human 




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageI

          trafficking under the criminal profiteering asset forfeiture 
          rules - not under the new forfeiture system described in this - 
          the proceeds of the forfeiture shall be deposited in the general 
          fund of the state or county that prosecuted the matter. 


                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
                                      ("ROCA")
          
          In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since 
          early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate 
          Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to 
          hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison 
          overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.  Under 
          the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for 
          "Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee 
          has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or 
          penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the 
          application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the 
          prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or 
          length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of 
          limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole 
          standards).  In addition, proposed expansions to the 
          classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011 
          Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and 
          not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to 
          ROCA because an offender's criminal record could make the 
          offender ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state 
          prison.  Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a 
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that 
          the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison 
          overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the 
          prison population.  ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding 
          is resolved.

          For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's 
          prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation. 
           On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years 
          earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern 
          District of California established a Receivership to take 




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageJ

          control of the delivery of medical services to all California 
          state prisoners confined by the California Department of 
          Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR").  In December of 2006, 
          plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a 
          court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the 
          federal Prison Litigation Reform Act.  On January 12, 2010, a 
          three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California 
          to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design 
          capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates 
          -- within two years.  The court stayed implementation of its 
          ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

          On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the 
          decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving 
          California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its 
          prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject 
          to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate 
          circumstances.  Design capacity is the number of inmates a 
          prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level 
          bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for 
          housing.  Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is 
          79,650.

          On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut 
          prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last 
          six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of 
          Assembly Bill 109.  Under the prisoner-reduction order, the 
          inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more 
          than the following:

                 167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011 
               (133,016 inmates);
                 155 percent by June 27, 2012;
                 147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
                 137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
               
          This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis 
          described above under ROCA.

                                      COMMENTS




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageK


          1.    Need for This Bill  

          According to the author:

               SB 1133 creates a new forfeiture statute that will 
               give prosecutors a powerful tool to ensure that 
               criminals convicted of sex trafficking minors are not 
               able to retain any financial benefits from their 
               participation in this horrendous crime.  The bill not 
               only expands the list of assets subject to forfeiture, 
               thereby ensuring that these resources are not used in 
               future crimes, but also includes a formula to redirect 
               those resources to organizations that provide 
               treatment and victim services for this vulnerable 
               population. 


               According to the U.S. Department of Justice, human 
               trafficking and sexual exploitation is the fastest 
               growing and second largest criminal enterprise in the 
               world.  Data gathered by the California Department of 
               Justice states that 195,644 children ran away from 
               home in 2009 and 2010.  Scholars estimate that, within 
               48 hours one-third of those children would be lured or 
               recruited into the underground world of prostitution 
               and pornography.  Even with an estimated 65,000 
               children lured into the sex trade in California in 
               2009 and 2010, only thirteen individuals were sent to 
               prison in California for human trafficking during that 
               time.  


          2.  Sex Trafficking of Minors - Estimated Prevalence  

          There appears to be general agreement that sex trafficking of 
          children is increasing and profitable.  However, the 2007 Final 
          Report of the California Alliance to Combat Trafficking and 






                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageL

          Slavery Task Force<3> noted that California lacks comprehensive 
                                             statistics on human trafficking.  Thus, many statistics on human 
          trafficking in general, and sex trafficking of children in 
          particular, are estimates.  The task force report did cite 
          statistics from various sources, including a study finding that 
          80 percent of documented cases in California occurred in urban 
          areas and the majority of victims were non-citizens.  
          Approximately 50 percent of human trafficking cases involved 
          prostitution.  A U.S. State Department report of global 
          trafficking estimated that minors constituted 50 percent of 
          trafficking victims.  (2007 Alliance to Combat Trafficking.  
          Final Report, pp. 33-39.<4>) 

          The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducts 24 Innocence 
          Lost child sexual exploitation task forces and working groups 
          across the country.  Through 2007, 365 cases were opened and 281 
          child victims were located.  The Shared Hope International 
          non-profit organization has reported that approximately 100,000 
          domestic minors are sexually trafficked each year.<5> Numerous 
          examples of trafficking cases were summarized in California 
          Alliance Report.  In 2001, a Berkeley man was prosecuted for 
          smuggling 15 girls from India for labor and sexual exploitation. 
           In 2000, a man was prosecuted for bringing women and girls from 
          Mexico and forcing them to work as prostitutes in Long Beach.  
          Traffickers in Los Angeles and San Francisco were prosecuted for 
          forcibly taking 100 women from Korea to be sex workers in 
          massage businesses.  (2007 Alliance to Combat Trafficking, Final 
          Report, p. 18.)

          3.     Criminal Profiteering Asset Forfeiture under Existing Law; 
          Comparison with this Bill  
          ---------------------------
          <3> The task force was administered by the California Attorney 
          General's Office.
          <4> 
           http://ag.ca.gov/publications/Human_Trafficking_Final_Report.pdf  .
            The report includes citations to the each of the studies 
          quoted in the report.
          <5> 
          http://www.sharedhope.org/Portals/0/Documents/SHI_National_Report
          _on_DMST_2009.pdf



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageM


          This bill creates a new forfeiture process for human trafficking 
          of minors for the commercial sex trade.  The forfeiture process 
          in this bill is largely based on the existing criminal 
          profiteering forfeiture law in Penal Code Section 186.2, with 
          important differences.

          Current Criminal Profiteering Forfeiture Laws

          Criminal profiteering asset forfeiture is a criminal proceeding 
          held in conjunction with the trial of the underlying criminal 
          offense.  Typically, the same jury that heard the criminal 
          charges determines whether the defendant's assets were the 
          ill-gotten gains of criminal profiteering.  Where a pattern of 
          criminal profiteering - organized crime for profit - is shown, 
          the defendant must forfeit to the state all money and property 
          derived from the pattern of organized crime.  

          Under existing law the forfeited proceeds of criminal 
          profiteering are usually placed in the county general fund with 
          no directions for use.  There are exceptions for forfeiture in 
          child pornography cases, fraud against the state recycling 
          program, human trafficking of minors for prostitution, and 
          procurement of minors for prostitution.  In child pornography 
          cases, the money is deposited in the county's children's trust 
          fund or the State Children's Trust Fund for child abuse and 
          neglect prevention and intervention.  Recycling forfeiture 
          proceeds are deposited in a special account created under the 
          Public Resources Code.  (Pen. Code § 186.8; Welf. Inst. Code §§ 
          18966 and 18969.)  

          Under current law, the proceeds of forfeiture in cases of human 
          trafficking of minors for prostitution and procurement of minors 
          for prostitution are distributed solely to the Victim-Witness 
          Assistance Fund for child sexual exploitation and abuse 
          counseling and prevention programs.  Fifty percent of the funds 
          are granted to community-based organizations that serve minor 
          victims of human trafficking.

          SB 90 (Swanson) Chapter 457, Statutes 2011, broadened the 




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageN

          application of criminal profiteering forfeiture in cases 
          involving sexually exploited minors.  SB 90 provided that any 
          crime in which the defendant sexually exploited a minor for 
          commercial purposes could be the basis for criminal profiteering 
          asset forfeiture, regardless of the specific statute violated by 
          the defendant.  That is, the defendant's conduct controls, not 
          his or her crime of conviction.

          Difference between this Bill and Current Law

          Under the existing criminal asset forfeiture law, forfeiture is 
          ordered after the defendant is convicted of a specified crime 
          and the prosecution establishes that the defendant has been 
          engaged in a pattern of criminal profiteering.  The proceeds of 
          criminal profiteering - the ill-





























                                                                     (More)











          gotten gains of the organized crime - are forfeited to the 
          state.  The California law is modeled on or derived from federal 
          racketeering laws - RICO.<6>

          This bill allows forfeiture where only a single human 
          trafficking crime is established.  The prosecutor need not 
          establish a pattern of human trafficking to allow forfeiture. 

          Without a pattern of forfeiture, relatively little money or 
          property would be forfeited as the proceeds or profits of human 
          trafficking. That is, a single crime or two would not produce 
          much profit.  However, and most important, this bill allows 
          forfeiture of not just the profits of crime, but also the 
          instrumentalities of the crime - the property used to commit the 
          crime.  Property is subject to forfeiture as an instrumentality 
          if a substantial purpose of the use of the property was to 
          facilitate sex trafficking of minors.  This is true even where 
          the prosecutor cannot trace a defendant's assets to trafficking 
          profits.  In discussions about the bill, the author argued that 
          property used to facilitate sex trafficking of minors must be 
          forfeited in order to reduce the ability of the perpetrator to 
          commit additional crimes.  

          Finally, as noted above, under existing law, all forfeited 
          proceeds of sex trafficking of minors are distributed to the 
          Victim-Witness Assistance Fund, with 50% available for grants to 
          community-based organizations.  Where forfeiture is done 
          pursuant to this bill, 50% of the proceeds shall be distributed 
          to the General Fund of the state or county, whichever 
          jurisdiction or entity prosecuted the case.  These funds can be 
          used by the state or county for any purpose.

          In discussions on prior bills, advocates noted that human 
          trafficking victims are often reluctant to report the crimes 
          against them because they are afraid of reprisals and because 
          they are often in the control of traffickers.  In order to 
          provide more resources and support for victims, the Legislature 

          ---------------------------
          <6> Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.  (18 U.S.C. 
          § 1961 et seq.)



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageP

          directed that all proceeds of human trafficking of minors for 
          commercial sex acts shall be used for programs benefiting 
          victims, including directions that 50% of the money shall be 
          provided to community-based organizations.  (AB 90 (Swanson) Ch. 
          457, Stats. 2011.)  

          However, the Attorney General (sponsor) has noted that 
          investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases are 
          costly.  This bill would provide some financial relief to the 
          county or the state without providing a direct payment of 
          "bounty" to the district attorney or the Attorney General, 
          depending on which office prosecuted the case.  That is, the 
          decision to pursue forfeiture would not lead to a direct 
          financial benefit to the prosecutor's office.  Rather, 50% of 
          the forfeiture proceeds would be deposited in the General Fund 
          of the overall government entity.  The Legislature or the board 
          of supervisors could make deliberative decisions as to the use 
          of forfeiture proceeds.




          Essentially, the Attorney General is arguing that in 
          distributing forfeiture proceeds in these cases, a balance 
          should be struck between victims' programs and resources for the 
          state.  Such a distribution could be mutually beneficial to 
          victims and prosecutors, helping victims come forward and 
          helping the state investigate and prosecute the cases.

          SHOULD FORFEITURE IN CASES INVOLVING SEX TRAFFICKING OF MINORS 
          INCLUDE THE PROPERTY USED BY THE DEFENDANT TO COMMIT THE 
          OFFENSE?

          SHOULD 50% OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDS IN CASES OF SEX TRAFFICKING OF 
          MINORS BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE GENERAL FUND OF THE COUNTY OF THE 
          STATE, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR THE 
          ATTORNEY GENERAL PROSECUTED THE CASE?

          OR, SHOULD ALL THE FORFEITURE PROCEEDS IN CASES OF TRAFFICKING 
          OF MINORS FOR SEXUAL COMMERCE CONTINUE TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO 












                                                             SB 1133 (Leno)
                                                                      PageQ

          PROGRAMS FOR VICTIMS OF THOSE CRIMES? 

          4.    Nuisance Remedies in Human Trafficking Matters  

           SB 677 (Yee) Chapter 625, Statutes of 2010, provided that where 
          real property is used to facilitate human trafficking, the 
          property can be declared a nuisance under the Red-Light 
          Abatement law.  (Pen. Code § 11225.)  Under that law, the 
          property can be closed for up to a year and a civil fine imposed 
          of up to $25,000.

          5.  Drafting Error in the Bill as Amended April 18, 2012  

          This bill was most recently amended on April 18, 2012.  The 
          amendments included an inadvertent drafting error concerning the 
          property subject to forfeiture under the process created by this 
          bill.  Specifically, the amendments did not provide that the 
          proceeds of human trafficking of minors for sexual commerce - 
          the profits made by the perpetrator of the crime - are subject 
          to forfeiture, as well as the property used to commit the 
          crimes.  The bill will be amended to correct the drafting error, 
          thereby authorizing forfeiture of the profits of human 
          trafficking of minors for sexual commerce.


                                   ***************