Judge Orders $49,500 Forfeiture Against Ex-Union Treasurer Who Embezzled $49,500 From Massachusetts Labor Chapter

BOSTON (LN) — U.S. District Judge Margaret R. Guzman granted the government's motion on May 22, 2026, ordering Joe Scott, Jr., to forfeit $49,500, finding that forfeiture is mandatory under federal law for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 501(c) and that the court lacked discretion to offset the forfeiture amount against the restitution already ordered.

Scott served as treasurer of the Communications Workers of America, Local 81154, from 2014 through March 2023, handling union funds for approximately 187 members employed by various Massachusetts businesses, including Business 1, a food packaging company in Ayer. According to the indictment, Scott withdrew cash and made debit card charges for personal expenses without following required co-signing procedures or backing expenditures with invoices.

The government included a forfeiture allegation in the September 2024 indictment seeking $49,500. Scott pleaded guilty to one count of Embezzlement from a Labor Union on January 22, 2026. At sentencing on May 1, 2026, the court ordered restitution of $49,559.63 but denied the government's forfeiture motion, stating that forfeiture was not mandatory and preferring to prioritize victim restitution.

Six days later, the government moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) and alternatively for reconsideration of the denial of forfeiture. The court found Rule 35(a) inapplicable because more than 14 days had elapsed since sentencing, but exercised its discretion to consider the motion under Rule 59(e) principles.

In granting the motion, the court acknowledged its prior error. "The Court takes ownership over its erroneous denial of the Motion for Order of Forfeiture, as it believed of sentencing that Scott's offense did not mandate forfeiture," Guzman wrote.

The court determined that forfeiture is mandatory because Scott's conviction under 29 U.S.C. § 501(c) constitutes a "specified unlawful activity" under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), making forfeiture required under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). The court also rejected any offset between forfeiture and restitution, citing precedent from sister circuits that district courts lack discretion to deny or reduce mandatory forfeiture based on concerns of "double payment."

Scott remains subject to 42 months of probation with the first six months on home detention, a $100 special assessment, and the previously ordered restitution of $49,559.63.