Instrumentalities historically have been treated as a form of 'guilty property' that can be forfeited in civil in rem proceedings. See Austin v. United States, 509 U. S., at 627-628 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), Instrumentality fairly characterizes property that historically was subject to forfeiture because it was the actual means by which an offense was committed. See e. g., J. W Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 505,508-510 (1921). 'Instrumentality' forfeitures have historically been limited to the property actually used to commit an offense and no more. See Austin v. United States, supra, at 627-628 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). A forfeiture that reaches beyond this strict historical limitation is ipso facto punitive and therefore subject to review under the Excessive Fines Clause.