Bloom v. United States Department of the Treasury

Filing 12

ORDER denying 1 Petitioner's Petition for Release of Property. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 1/28/13.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12

Joshua Bloom,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
United States Department of Treasury, )
)
)
Respondent.
_________________________________ )

No. CV-12-1999-PHX-FJM
ORDER

13
14
15

The court has before it petitioner’s petition for release of property pursuant to 18

16

U.S.C. § 983(f)(5) (doc. 1), and the government’s objection (doc. 6). Petitioner seeks the

17

release of a 2004 Rolls Royce Phantom Sedan, VIN SCA1S68444UX07410 (“vehicle”),

18

which was seized by the government pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 981

19

and is now subject to forfeiture. The government contends that the vehicle was purchased

20

through financial transactions that were knowingly structured to avoid the reporting

21

requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a). Bloom now seeks

22

return of the vehicle, contending that its seizure has caused a financial hardship by

23

preventing him from operating his business.

24

In order to support his petition for return of property, Bloom must show that (1) he

25

has a possessory interest in the vehicle, (2) he has sufficient ties to the community so as to

26

provide assurance that the property will be available at the time of trial, (3) the government’s

27

continued possession of the property will cause a substantial hardship, and (4) the hardship

28

outweighs the risk that the property will become unavailable if it is returned to the claimant

1

while forfeiture proceedings are pending. 18 U.S.C. § 983(f)(1).

2

Bloom claims to be the sole shareholder of Luxury Coach Services, Inc. (“LCS”),

3

which he contends provides luxury vehicle and limousine service within the Phoenix metro

4

area. He asserts that the vehicle is the property of LCS and that the LCS business is his main

5

source of income. (Doc. 1).

6

The government challenges Bloom’s claim of financial hardship, arguing that Bloom

7

has presented no evidence that the vehicle ever generated any income. Although Bloom

8

claims that LCS is incorporated in Nevada and Arizona, the Nevada corporation’s license

9

expired on February 28, 2011, and the Arizona corporate status was revoked on October 28,

10

2011. In addition, LCS has never been licensed to operate a limousine service in Arizona,

11

and there is no record of any income generated by LCS. In fact there is no record of any

12

wages paid to Bloom in the last three years. Finally, Bloom’s driver’s license was revoked

13

following a DUI conviction, and although two other luxury vehicles are also purported to be

14

owned by LCS, Bloom has made no effort to place these vehicles in service in place of the

15

seized vehicle.

16

The government has called into question Bloom’s community ties, establishing that

17

he has significant connections with other states, including addresses, driver’s licenses, and

18

vehicles registered in Virginia and Delaware. The government also has demonstrated that

19

any claimed hardship is far outweighed by the risk that the vehicle will be unavailable if it

20

is returned to Bloom while the forfeiture proceedings are pending. The vehicle is highly

21

mobile and could be moved, sold, damaged or destroyed with little effort, making recovery

22

difficult, if not impossible. Bloom did not respond to the government’s objections.

23

We conclude that Bloom has failed to satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §

24

983(f)(1). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING Bloom’s petition for release of property

25

(doc. 1). The clerk shall enter final judgment.

26

DATED this 28th day of January, 2013.

27
28
-2-