The Massachusetts Appeals Court on Nov. 17 heard competing views over how narrowly the state’s money‑laundering forfeiture statute must be applied.

Appellants’ counsel Matthew Thompson told the three‑judge panel the Commonwealth never showed probable cause to forfeit property beyond the $106,000 that the petition alleged was stolen. "My argument is that a $106,000 … is the cap on what can be forfeited," Thompson said, arguing the statute requires a direct nexus tying seized assets to the proceeds of an identified money‑laundering transaction.

Assistant District Attorney Matthew Padilano defended the Commonwealth’s reliance on circumstantial proof. Padilano said prosecutors need not identify a single transaction in the chain when other reliable information shows the property was probably derived from money‑laundering transactions. "I believe the circumstantial evidence, and I think that's where we get into the showing the lack of other legitimate assets disproves some innocent explanation," Padilano told the court.

The bench repeatedly pressed both sides on statutory text and precedent. Thompson urged that federal cases stretching forfeiture reach reflect broader federal language and do not control Massachusetts’s more narrowly worded statute; Padilano replied that drug‑forfeiture decisions and related doctrines provide useful analogies when state precedent is sparse.

The arguments recapped key factual points from the record: $495,320 and a 2015 Jeep Cherokee were seized after searches, and the Commonwealth relied heavily on an affidavit outlining the defendant’s prior theft convictions and discrepancies in his statements. Thompson emphasized that the petition alleged only $106,000 in unrecovered stolen property and that the Commonwealth failed to prove what proceeds flowed from that theft into the seized assets.

The panel took arguments under advisement after extended questioning. If the court sides with Thompson, it could limit civil forfeiture awards under the state money‑laundering statute to property directly traceable to alleged laundering proceeds; a ruling for the Commonwealth would make it easier for prosecutors to rely on circumstantial evidence and career‑long patterns to meet the civil probable‑cause threshold.

The court did not announce a decision at argument’s end; the cases are submitted.