Asset Forfeiture
[11/19]
US v. Miller
District court's order to destroy 34 firearms and for defendant to collect just compensation from the government arising from his conviction of aiding and abetting the possession of firearms by a felon, is vacated and remanded where: 1) because the government did not commence a timely forfeiture proceeding, defendant's property interest in the firearms continues even though his possessory interest has been curtailed; and 2) as such, if the government does not want to sell the firearms for his account, then it must offer defendant some other lawful option, such as having a trustee sell or hold the guns, or giving them to someone who can be relied on to treat them as his own.
[11/18]
US v. Moser
In a petition for attorney's fees pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) after petitioner prevailed in an asset forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 21 U.S.C. section 853(n), denial of the petition is affirmed where the arguments for and against permitting a prevailing section 853(n) petitioner to receive attorneys' fees from the government were too closely balanced to allow the court of appeals to conclude that Congress's waiver of sovereign immunity clearly and unequivocally applied in this situation.
[11/13]
Hawknet, Ltd. v. Overseas Shipping Agencies
In an appeal from the district court's order vacating the attachment of an electronic funds transfer (EFT), the order is affirmed and the case is remanded for an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction where: 1) the rule announced recently in Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., __ F.3d __, No.08-3477, 2009 WL 3319675 (2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009), applies retroactively; and 2) a party's failure to assert an argument prior to the announcement of a decision which might support it does not constitute waiver.
[10/27]
US v. Venturella
District court's conviction of defendants for mail fraud and order to pay a criminal forfeiture money judgment and restitution is affirmed as: 1) forfeiture is not limited solely to the amounts alleged in the count(s) of conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 981(a)(1)(C); 2) defendants waived their rights to forfeiture calculations review on appeal; and 3) imposing restitution and forfeiture for the same crime is not an improper double payment.
[10/20]
US v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency
In a civil forfeiture action seeking the proceeds of medical marijuana distribution, judgment for the government is reversed where the evidence relied upon by the district court was itself tainted by the illegal search and should have been suppressed, and without the suppressed evidence, the government lacked probable cause to connect the defendant currency to a violation of federal law.
[10/16]
Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd.
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order vacating portions of an order of maritime attachment and garnishment, the order is affirmed in part where electronic fund transfers (EFTs) being processed by an intermediary bank are not property subject to attachment under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. However, the court of appeals remands the cause for further proceedings with respect to the remaining portions of the attachment order affecting EFTs of which defendant was the originator.
[09/11]
US v. Bucci
Defendant's sentence, a forfeiture order and convictions for drug trafficking and related crimes is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant discovery in support of his vindictive-prosecution claim; 2) a second superseding indictment was timely filed as defendant did not "engage" in a monetary transaction until the funds were deposited into his account; 3) defendant had no reasonable objective expectation of privacy in the front of his home; 4) officers had probable cause to believe there was evidence of criminal activity in defendant's vehicle to conduct a search; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government a rebuttal opening statement; 6) district court's imposition of enhancement did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights where the court was aware of its discretion to impose a below-guideline sentence and adequately considered defendant's argument for a below-guideline sentence; and 7) district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury that "proceeds" meant "gross proceeds" for forfeiture purposes.
[09/09]
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Neiswonger
District court's entry of a civil contempt order against defendant for violations of a prior permanent injunction enjoining him from using deceptive and misleading sales practices is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a hearing on the issue of damages and disgorgement as he was afforded due process during the civil contempt proceedings and was given notice and ample opportunity to be heard on the issues of damages and disgorgement, as well as on the issue of FTC's calculation of his profits from the scheme; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion or err in adopting the receiver's calculation of defendant's proceeds; 3) defendant's challenge to the district court's order compelling him to turn over property in Nevada is rejected; and 4) there was no error in ordering defendant to turn over assets in his IRA.
[09/08]
US v. Taylor
Defendant's sentence for fraud in obtaining disaster relief assistance is affirmed where: 1) any error resulting from recalculation of the loss to FEMA caused by defendant's offenses did not affect defendant's substantial rights, and therefore was harmless; 2) the district court's order of restitution and forfeiture against defendant would not result in double recovery to the government; and 3) the district court did not err in not offsetting defendant's restitution obligation by the amount he was required to forfeit.
[09/08]
US v. $6,190.00 in US Currency
In an appeal from the district court's order striking claimant's claim to his assets in a civil forfeiture proceeding, the order is affirmed where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 1956 authorized federal jurisdiction over forfeiture actions for proceeds of a violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1324, if that violation was for financial gain; and 2) 28 U.S.C. section 2466(a), the fugitive disentitlement statute, applied to claimants who were fugitives from state criminal proceedings.
[08/26]
Suever v. Connell
In an action by a putative class of persons whose financial assets escheated to the California Controller's Office pursuant to California's Unclaimed Property Law (UPL), alleging insufficient notice and mishandling of plaintiffs' property, order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and defendants is affirmed in part where the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiffs' claims for restitution. However, the order is reversed in part where the state was not constitutionally required to pay any interest under the UPL.
[08/25]
US v. Salti
In an appeal from a dismissal of a petition asserting an interest in a bank account the court had ordered forfeited as a result of the government's plea agreement with one petitioner's nephew, the order is reversed where a petitioner's alleged ill health is clearly relevant to whether the petitioner is deliberately avoiding prosecution by declining to enter or reenter the U.S., and such an argument is properly asserted in response to the government's attempt to apply the fugitive disentitlement statute.
[08/24]
US v. Marrocco
In forfeiture proceedings involving cash that was suspected to be connected to drugs, district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress dog-sniff test evidence is reversed and remanded where: 1) the police officers' suspicion that a briefcase contained drugs or money associated with drugs was reasonable; 2) detention of the briefcase was reasonable; and 3) officer's unlawful search of the briefcase fell under under the inevitable discovery doctrine where the government obtained an independent legal justification for conducting a search which led to the discovery of the evidence and officers inevitably would have sought the warrant and conducted a lawful search.
[08/19]
US v. Certain Real Prop.
In the government's appeal from an attorney's fee award following the dismissal of the government's civil forfeiture action, the award is reversed where attorney's fees incurred in the defense of a criminal action may not be awarded in a related civil forfeiture action under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 without regard for the stringent limitations on attorney-fee awards in criminal cases under the Hyde Amendment.
[08/18]
US v. Kaley
In an appeal from an order enjoining defendants from encumbering the property listed in the forfeiture count of an indictment, the order is reversed where the district court needed to determine whether defendants were entitled to a pretrial hearing based on: (1) the length of the delay before the defendants received their post-restraint hearing; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendants' assertion of the right to such a hearing pretrial; and (4) the prejudice the defendants suffered due to the delay weighed against the strength of the United States' interest in the subject property.
[08/05]
US v. Cox
In the government's appeal from an order awarding petitioner attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the order is reversed where the government had a reasonable basis in fact and law to contend that petitioner was not a bona fide purchaser for value of her ex-husband's assets under 21 U.S.C. section 853.
[07/31]
US v. Nacchio
In an insider trading prosecution, the restitution order issued against defendant is reversed, where the gain from defendant's offense should be calculated in a manner that is more narrowly focused on producing a figure that reflects, in at least approximate terms, the proceeds related to his criminally culpable conduct.
[07/31]
US v. Berger
In a loan fraud prosecution, denial of appellant's motion seeking a share of the proceeds of a transaction made by defendant, her husband, is affirmed where community property is available to satisfy a restitution judgment obtained under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) against a criminally liable spouse, including that portion of the property that otherwise would potentially be awarded upon dissolution of marriage to an innocent spouse who was not involved in the criminal activity.
[07/27]
US v. Huntington Nat'l. Bank
In an action by a lender seeking to recover assets from a borrower that were seized by the government, a ruling for the government is reversed where the lender preserved its argument that it was a bona fide purchaser by stating the issue to the district court with sufficient clarity to give the court and opposing parties notice that it was asserting the issue.
[07/13]
US v. Quintero
Conviction for drug crimes and forfeiture of property is affirmed where a failure to include the forfeiture of defendant's car in the judgment was a clerical error that the district court properly corrected under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
Back to Main Menu
| 
