What is the current status of federal referrals (SDNY/IRS) stemming from the New York Attorney General's investigation, and what crimes would prosecutors need to prove to seek criminal forfeiture?
Executive summary
The New York Attorney General’s civil probe of the Trump organization was publicly accompanied by formal referrals to federal authorities — the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the IRS — but there is no public record in the provided reporting that SDNY or IRS confirmed opening a related criminal prosecution at the time of the referral; SDNY acknowledged awareness but declined further comment [1]. In principle, federal prosecutors seeking criminal forfeiture would have to prove underlying predicate crimes (for example, fraud, tax offenses, or conspiracy) and then connect specific assets as proceeds of or instruments used to commit those crimes — a legal nexus typically prosecuted by SDNY units that handle securities, commodities and tax-related fraud in coordination with IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) [2] [3].
1. What the referrals were and what public sources say about follow‑up
New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office publicly filed civil litigation and simultaneously referred the matter to federal authorities, naming both the SDNY and the IRS among recipients of that referral; news coverage at the time reported the AG’s referral but also noted that “there was no immediate indication” whether SDNY or the IRS had agreed to open a criminal investigation, and an SDNY spokesperson said only that the office was “aware of the New York Attorney General’s referral” and declined further comment [1]. The reporting available in the provided sources does not include a subsequent SDNY press release or IRS statement either confirming an active criminal case opened as a direct result of that referral or identifying committed charges flowing from it [1] [3].
2. How SDNY and IRS-CI typically handle referrals like this
The Southern District of New York routinely receives referrals from state attorneys general and civil enforcement bodies and has specialized units — including securities and commodities fraud and white‑collar teams — that investigate and prosecute complex financial crimes; those units commonly coordinate with federal partners such as IRS‑Criminal Investigation when alleged misconduct implicates tax or bank reporting violations [2] [3]. SDNY’s public-facing materials emphasize that the office prosecutes “a broad array of criminal conduct” and works closely with law‑enforcement partners, which reflects the institutional pathway by which a civil referral can lead to federal criminal inquiry even when initial public confirmation is limited or withheld [4] [2].
3. What prosecutors must prove to obtain criminal forfeiture
Federal criminal forfeiture typically proceeds only after criminal conviction or as part of a criminal case and requires prosecutors to establish at trial both the predicate offense and that the property at issue is traceable to the criminal conduct — in other words, that assets are “proceeds” of the crime or were used to facilitate it; courts demand proof of a nexus between the offense and the property (the provided sources describe SDNY’s focus on fraud and tax matters but do not supply a step‑by‑step statutory primer on forfeiture elements) [2]. Where tax crimes are implicated, IRS‑CI involvement signals that prosecutors would likely pursue counts such as tax evasion, filing false returns, or related fraud statutes; where financial statement manipulation or investor deception is alleged, securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy charges are typical predicates for seeking forfeiture in SDNY cases [2] [3]. The specific statutory mechanisms (criminal forfeiture statutes, ancillary forfeiture procedures, money‑laundering forfeiture provisions) and the required proofs are not detailed in the provided reporting, so this account relies on how SDNY describes its criminal practice areas rather than a source that lists the precise elements for forfeiture in this particular referral [2].
4. What is known, and what remains publicly opaque
Public reporting in the supplied sources confirms the AG’s referral and SDNY’s acknowledgement of awareness but does not document a follow‑on public filing, indictment, or confirmed opening of a criminal investigation by SDNY or the IRS tied directly to that referral; the SDNY and IRS often decline to comment publicly on whether they have opened a probe, which leaves the status opaque absent later press releases or court filings [1] [3]. Institutional practice suggests the referral could spur IRS‑CI and federal prosecutorial review — and, if criminal charges were brought, the kinds of crimes that would support forfeiture would be financial‑fraud, tax, or conspiracy offenses — but the provided sources do not show a completed transition from referral to federal criminal case in this instance [1] [2].