United States of America v. $441,000.00 in U.S. Currency (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)
DECREE of Forfeiture directing that it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the motion for decree of forfeiture (doc. no. 13 ) is granted and the defendant $441,000.00 in U.S. currency is hereby forfeited to the United States, to be disposed of according to law, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on August 30, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
$441,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
DECREE OF FORFEITURE
Before the court is the United States of America’s (“United States”) motion for decree of
forfeiture (doc. no. 13).
On May 24, 2016, the United States filed a verified complaint for forfeiture (doc. no. 1)
alleging that the defendant property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A),
(C) and (D) (iv) and (v), for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 (mail fraud), 1343 (wire fraud),
1344 (bank fraud), 1956 and 1957(a) (money laundering), and 1960 (unlicensed money
Pursuant to a warrant for arrest in rem issued by this court on May 25, 2016 (doc. no. 3),
the District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator with the United States Marshals Service served
defendant on June 10, 2016. See Process Receipt and Return (doc. no. 5).
On July 5, 2016, attorney A. Jeff Ifrah, on behalf of Husam Tayeh and Dinar Corp., Inc
was served with copies of the verified complaint for forfeiture, notice of complaint, and warrant
of arrest in rem. See Acknowledgment of Service (doc. nos. 7, 10, 10-1).
On July 5, 2016, attorney A. Jeff Ifrah, on behalf of Husam Tayeh, was served with
copies of the verified complaint for forfeiture, notice of complaint, and warrant of arrest
in rem. See Acknowledgment of Service (doc. nos. 8, 9, 9-1).
Notice of said civil forfeiture action was posted on an official government internet site
(www.forfeiture.gov) for a period of 30 consecutive days. See Declaration of Publication (doc.
On June 7, 2016, an information was filed in the Middle District of Alabama charging
Husam Usama Tayeh a/k/a “Sam Tayeh,” “Sam,” and “Hasam Usama Tayeh” with wire fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. (USA v. Tayeh, 1:16cr213-WKW).
On July 11, 2016, Husam Usama Tayeh entered a plea of guilty to wire fraud.
agreement (USA v. Tayeh, 1:16cr213-WKW, doc. no. 11) contained the following language:
The defendant agrees to waive any and all rights – constitutional,
statutory, or otherwise – that he may have with regard to the civil
forfeiture proceedings related to the following cases: (1) United
States v. 2004 Porsche Cayenne, VIN: WP1AC29P94LA93238,
with all appurtenances and attachments thereon, et al.,
1:15-CV-936-WKW; (2) United States v. $20,000 seized from
Pentagon Federal Credit Union Account Number xxxxx4-025 in
the name of Theodore S. Hudson and/or Adeline C. Hudson, et al.,
1:16-CV-205-WKW; and (3) United States v. $441,000.00 in U.S.
Currency, 1:16-CV-373-MHT. More specifically, the defendant
agrees that he hereby forfeits all rights that he had to any of the
defendant property in those cases and that he hereby waives any
and all right to contest the forfeiture of the defendant property.
On August 24, 2016, the clerk of court entered default against Husam Tayeh, individually
and on behalf of Dinar Corp., Inc., and against Dinar Corp., Inc. See Clerk’s Entry of Default
(doc. no. 12).
It appearing that process was fully issued in this action and returned according to law and
for good cause otherwise shown, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
motion for decree of forfeiture (doc. no. 13) is granted and the defendant $441,000.00 in U.S.
currency is hereby forfeited to the United States, to be disposed of according to law.
DONE, this the 30th day of August, 2016.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?