ɔːlðˈoʊ tˈɑːməs nˈoʊɾᵻd ðætðə kˈeɪs wʌz kˈɑːmplᵻkˌeɪɾᵻd baɪ ðə fˈækt ðæt bˈoʊθ fˈɛdɚɹəl lˈɔː ænd ðə ɡˈʌvɚnmənts kˈeɪs ɪn bˌædʒɐkˈeɪdʒiən sˈʌmwʌt blˈɜːd ðə dɪstˈɪŋkʃən bᵻtwˌiːn sˈɪvəl fˈɔːɹfɪtʃɚ ænd ɐ fˈaɪn ɪntˈɛndᵻd tə pˈʌnɪʃ, ɪt wʌz klˈɪɹ ɪn ðɪs kˈeɪs ðæt pˈʌnɪʃmənt wʌz æt lˈiːst pˈɑːɹt ʌvðə ɡˈʌvɚnmənts ɪntˈɛnt.
Although Thomas noted that the case was complicated by the fact that both federal law and the government's case in Bajakajian somewhat blurred the distinction between civil forfeiture and a fine intended to punish, it was clear in this case that punishment was at least part of the government's intent.