klˈæɹᵻfˌaɪɪŋ wˈɛðɚ sˈiːʒɚz ʌv pɹˈɑːpɚɾi ɑːɹ kənsˈɪdɚd fˈaɪnz ɔːɹ pˈʌnɪʃmənts, hiː dᵻkɹˈiːd ðˌæɾə kɹˈɪmɪnəl fˈɔːɹfɪtʃɚ kʊd biː kənsˈɪdɚd æz bˈoʊθ ɐ tˈaɪp ʌv fˈaɪn ænd ɐ pˈʌnɪʃmənt, wˌaɪl ɐ sˈɪvəl fˈɔːɹfɪtʃɚ wʌz nˌɑːt ɪntˈɛndᵻd æz ɐ pˈʌnɪʃmənt əvə pˈɜːsən bˌʌt ɹˈæðɚɹ ˈeɪ "lˈiːɡəl fˈɪkʃən ʌv pˈʌnɪʃɪŋ ðə pɹˈɑːpɚɾi", kəŋklˈuːdɪŋ ðæt sˈɪvəl fˈɔːɹfɪtʃɚz wɜː nˌɑːɾə tˈaɪp ʌv fˈaɪn.
Clarifying whether seizures of property are considered fines or punishments, he decreed that a criminal forfeiture could be considered as both a type of fine and a punishment, while a civil forfeiture was not intended as a punishment of a person but rather a "legal fiction of punishing the property", concluding that civil forfeitures were not a type of fine.