Case Summaries
Asset Forfeiture
[09/03]
Allied Maritime, Inc. v. Descatrade SA
An order vacating the process of maritime attachment and garnishment issued on April 15, 2009 attaching defendant's assets to secure a putative foreign arbitral award and dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant’s bank account in Paris, France, the suspense account created by the bank in response to the attachment order, and any other intangible property arising from an electronic funds transfer.
[08/31]
Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).
[08/27]
US v. Ali
District court's conviction of defendant, imposition of a 57-month sentence, and orders of $4.9 million in restitution and $2.56 million in forfeiture, for running a grocery store and a food stamp scam that defrauded the United States Department of Agriculture out of several million dollars, are affirmed for the most part where: 1) the record does not support defendant's claim that during the plea colloquy, the district court failed to ensure that he knew the elements of wire fraud; 2) defendant has not shown that the government's statement about his sentence exposure affected any substantial right; 3) district court's conclusion that defendant had not accepted responsibility was not clear error; 4) district court's factual findings supporting the forfeiture award were not clearly erroneous; 5) district court's restitution order is remanded to correct the restitution award to reflect that the amount proven at the forfeiture proceeding was $4.29 million; and 6) defendant's motion seeking remand for evidentiary hearing is denied.
[08/05]
US v. $231,930.00 in US Currency
In an in rem forfeiture action by the government seeking forfeiture of defendant's currency, the order of forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) a traffic violation occurred, creating probable cause for the search of defendant's vehicle; 2) the facts did not show that the officer unconstitutionally extended the legal traffic stop; and 3) defendant made no effort to limit or stop the search once it began.
[08/04]
Mesle v. Signed Personal Check No. 730
In claimant's appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to set aside an entry of default in a forfeiture proceeding against checks drawn on claimant's accounts and funds in those accounts, the order is reversed where the district court erred by holding the movant to a standard inappropriate for determining whether an unrepresented lay party's conduct demonstrated culpability; and made merits decisions as to the movant’s defenses that were premature at this stage of the proceedings, and, moreover, were incorrect.
[08/04]
US v. Barr
In the government's suit against defendant and his wife, seeking to foreclose a federal tax lien, created by the couple's debt for unpaid income taxes, against the home that the couple own as tenants by the entirety, district court's determination that foreclosure was appropriate is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that the wife is entitled to fifty percent of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale; and 2) even if the Court in US v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (1983) had intended to mandate application of its four-part balancing test prior to any court-ordered foreclosure sale under section 7403, the decision of the district court would still be affirmed as there is no evidence that the district court abused its discretion.
[08/03]
US v. Li
Conviction of defendant for harboring an alien for commercial advantage or private financial gain is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that defendant's inattentiveness reflected his knowledge or reckless disregard of the two aliens' illegal status; 2) the evidence supports an inference that defendant sought to conceal the aliens' presence; 3) evidence supported an inference that defendant derived financial advantage from the aliens' illegal status; 4) defendant's challenge to the jury instruction regarding the mens rea required to convict for harboring an alien is waived; and 5) given the potential punishment the district court could have assessed, the forfeiture of defendant's home is not so grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his convictions as to be excessive.
[07/08]
Gomez v. Village of Pinecrest
In forfeiture proceeding against a property owner, claiming that the property was being used for criminal activity by the property owner's leaseholders, Third District's decision in Gomez is approved and the First and Fifth Districts' decisions in Forfeiture of 1993 Lexus and Baggett are disapproved as, based on the plain and unambiguous language of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, the seizing agency is not required to establish the owner's actual or constructive knowledge at the seizure stage. Rather, at the seizure stage, the agency is required to establish only that there is probably cause to believe that the property was being employed or likely to be employed in criminal activity, and establishing the owner's actual or constructive knowledge is not required until the forfeiture stage.
[07/07]
US v. Castello
A revised forfeiture order against defendant based on his conviction for failing to file Currency Transaction Reports in the course of running his check-cashing business is vacated where the application of the four Bajakajian factors established that the forfeiture imposed in the district court's initial forfeiture order was not grossly disproportional to the crime for which defendant was convicted.
[06/18]
US v. 777 Greene Ave.
In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the motion to withdraw of defendant's counsel is denied where such a motion will not be granted unless counsel satisfies the requirements established under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1976), and its progeny. With regard to motions to withdraw filed by appellate counsel appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 983(b)(2)(A), the procedure established under Anders and its progeny is best suited to protect the right to counsel to which indigent litigants are entitled.
[06/10]
People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co.
In a motion to set aside a forfeiture and exonerate a bond, court of appeals' reversal of trial court's denial is reversed as a motion for relief from forfeiture of bail must be made within 180 days of forfeiture, unless the time is extended as the governing statute permits, even when an absconding defendant is arrested or surrendered in a county other than the jurisdiction where the case is pending.
[06/09]
US v. Connors
In the civil forfeiture proceedings of defendant's home allegedly used to facilitate his illegal operation of Cuban cigar smuggling and distribution business, for which he was eventually convicted of, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed as the court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, as the government filed its complaint within five years of the alleged offenses; 2) district court's grant of summary judgment on an income deficiency theory is affirmed; and 3) the property remains forfeited to the United States.
[06/02]
Mabry v. Superior Court
In homeowners' petition for a writ of mandate challenging an order of the trial court, allowing for foreclosure to proceed on their home, is granted in part and remanded to the trial court to determine whether or not the lender complied with Civil Code section 2923.5. To the extent that the trial court's order precludes the assertion of any class action claims, the petition is denied.
[06/01]
In re: Jordan
In a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to direct the government to return motorcycles seized in connection with a criminal investigation, the petition is denied where the district court did not clear err in determining that, when the government has failed to provide notice of a seizure in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 983(a)(1)(A), section 983(a)(1)(F) does not compel the government to return seized property before initiating a judicial forfeiture proceeding.
[05/26]
US v. Hull
In a prosecution for distribution of child pornography, the forfeiture of defendant's property is affirmed where: 1) the evidence showed a substantial connection - not merely an incidental or fortuitous relationship - between the real property and the offenses; 2) because defendant's acreage was a single tract of land that was conveyed to him as a whole, the district court was correct to treat the entire acreage as a single piece of "property" when applying the statute; and 3) the relatively high recommended fine range did not suggest a minimal level of culpability, and a comparison of the forfeiture and the fine range suggested that the forfeiture was, at a minimum, presumptively not excessive.
