United States of America et al v. $1,802,651.56 in Funds Seized From E-Bullion et al

Filing 153

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE: The government shall have judgment as to the defendant assets, and each of them, which are hereby forfeited and condemned to the United States, and no other right, title or interest shall exist therein. The government shall dispose of the forfeited property according to law. Each of the parties shall bear its own fees and costs in connection with the seizure of the defendant assets and this action (See document for further details) by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (ir)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
ROBERT E. DUGDALE
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
STEVEN R. WELK
California Bar No. 149883
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section
P. GREG PARHAM
California Bar No. 140310
KATHARINE SCHONBACHLER
California Bar No. 222875
Assistant United States Attorneys
Federal Courthouse, 14th Floor
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

E-FILED 7/30/2012
JS-6

12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
WESTERN DIVISION
17
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
$1,802,651.56 IN FUNDS SEIZED )
FROM E-BULLION, ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________)
GOLDFINGER COIN & BULLION,
)
INC., et al.
)
)
)
Claimants.
)

26
27

/ / /

28

/ / /
/ / /

NO. CV 09-1731 PSG (JWJx)
[PROPOSED]
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

1

Plaintiff United States of America (“plaintiff” or the

2

“government”) and claimants Goldfinger Coin & Bullion, Inc.

3

(“GCB”) and Goldfinger Bullion Reserve Corp. (“GBRC”)

4

(collectively, “Claimants”), through their counsel, have made a

5

stipulated request for the entry of this Consent Judgment,

6

resolving this action in its entirety.

7

Background Facts

8

This action was commenced on March 12, 2009.

(DN 1).

9

Notice was given and published in accordance with law.

On May 1,

10

2009, verified claims were filed by GBRC, GCB, E-Bullion, Inc.,

11

James Fayed (“Fayed”), and the Estate of Pamela Fayed (“the

12

Estate”) (collectively, the “original Claimants”).

13

The original Claimants, represented by Brown White & Newhouse,

14

LLP, filed their answers on September 24, 2009.

15

other claims or answers were filed and the time for filing claims

16

and answers has expired.

17

(DN 7-11).

(DN 28-32).

No

The defendant assets included $1,894,559.69 seized on August

18

12, 2008 from Bank of America (“BofA”) account no XXXXX-X7358 in

19

the name of GCB1; $8,715.62 seized on August 14, 2008 from BofA

20

account no XXXXX-X7356 in the name GCB; $37,303.36 seized on

21

August 14, 2008 from Wells Fargo Bank (“WFB”) account no XXX-

22

XXX5942 in the name of GCB; $70,810.88 seized on August 14, 2008

23

from WFB account no XXX-XXX3735 in the name of GCB; $560,680.07

24

seized on August 14, 2008 from BofA account no XXXXX-X1905 in the

25

name of GCB; $2,279,111.69 seized on August 14, 2008 from BofA

26

account no XXXXX-X9713 in the name of GCB; $165,840.19 seized on

27
1

28

The full account numbers have been redacted pursuant to
Local Rule 79-5.4.
2

1

September 11, 2008 from BofA account no XXXXX-X7355 in the name

2

of GCB; $472,228.34 seized on July 22, 2009 from Wells Fargo Bank

3

account #XX9326CHF maintained in the Cayman Islands by GCB;

4

currency and items of personal property seized from the offices

5

of the Goldfinger entities located on Flynn Road in Camarillo,

6

California, and listed in pages 21 through 34 of Exhibit A to the

7

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”); and items seized from a

8

residence on Baja Vista Way in Camarillo, which were listed on

9

page 35 of exhibit A to the FAC.

10

On February 3, 2010, entry of default was entered by the

11

Clerk as to the defendant $1,802,651.56 in funds seized from E-

12

Bullion, Inc., as to which no claim had been filed.

13

Default judgment was entered against that asset on August 20,

14

2010.

(DN 39).

(DN 52).

15

On August 3, 2011, the government filed a First Amended

16

Complaint (“FAC”) (DN 87) pursuant to an order of August 2, 2011

17

(DN 86).

18

on August 17, 2011.

19

Jeff Berke and Kenneth Kossoff substituted into the case as

20

counsel for the Estate.

21

parties submitted a stipulation asking the Court to dismiss the

22

defendant assets that had been seized from the Baja Vista Way

23

residence and the defendant assets that had been seized from

24

Fayed’s office on Flynn Road.

25

also resulted in the withdrawal from the case of Fayed, E-

26

Bullion, Inc., and the Estate.

27

dismissal and withdrawal in an order of March 1, 2012, leaving

28

GBRC and GCB as the sole remaining claimants.

The original Claimants filed their answers to the FAC
(DN 88-92).

On January 24, 2012, attorneys

(DN 100).

On February 29, 2012, the

The February 29, 2012 stipulation

(DN 104).

3

The Court approved the

(DN 105).

1

On October 7, 2010, the Commonwealth Director of Public

2

Prosecutions (part of the government of Australia) (“the CDPP”)

3

filed an action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia

4

pursuant to §§ 25 and 59(1) of the Australian Proceeds of Crime

5

Act 2002 (the “Act”), seeking relief under §§ 19(1) and 49(1) of

6

the Act respectively. Specifically, by way of an ex parte

7

application the CDPP sought to restrain an account with the Perth

8

(Australia) Mint, entitled Goldfinger Bullion Reserve Corporation

9

Account SEC579, to the credit of which account stood a quantity

10

of gold and silver bullion and a sum of United States Dollars. On

11

an inter partes application the CDPP sought to forfeit the

12

property standing to the credit of that account(the “Australian

13

Litigation”). With effect from 30 March 2012 the Commissioner of

14

the Australian Federal Police (also part of the government of

15

Australia) was substituted in the Australian Litigation as

16

applicant, in lieu of the CDPP, pursuant to §.315B of the Act.

17

The Respondents in the Australian Litigation are GCB, GBRC, Fayed

18

and the Estate.

19

Australian Litigation.

20

The United States is not a party to the

The application to forfeit the property remains pending in

21

the Australian Litigation, but is expected to be resolved

22

simultaneously with this action.

23

Litigation, the Australian government has agreed (pursuant to a

24

Consent Order to be presented to the Supreme Court of Western

25

Australia) to release USD $5.1 million (the “Australian

26

Settlement Funds”) to Respondents’ legal representative in the

27

Australian Litigation, pursuant to § 29(1) of the Act.

Specifically, in the Australian

28
4

1

The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties,

2

and good cause appearing therefor, HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND

3

DECREES:

4

1.

The government has given and published notice of this

5

action as required by law, including Supplemental Rule G for

6

Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions,

7

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of this

8

Court.

9

above, and the time for filing claims and answers has expired.

No claims or answers were filed other than those listed

10

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this judgment and

11

the defendant assets remaining in this case.

12

claimant to the remaining defendant assets other than the

13

original Claimants is deemed to have admitted the allegations of

14

the first amended complaint with respect to these assets.

15

2.

Any potential

The government shall have judgment as to the defendant

16

assets, and each of them, which are hereby forfeited and

17

condemned to the United States, and no other right, title or

18

interest shall exist therein.

19

the forfeited property according to law.

20

3.

The government shall dispose of

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of

21

California (the “USAO”) has agreed that it shall recommend to the

22

Attorney General of the United States (and to his designee, the

23

Chief of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section,

24

Criminal Division, Department of Justice) that the defendant

25

assets be distributed according to the remission process

26

authorized by 18 U.S.C. §981(d) (“The Attorney General shall have

27

sole responsibility for disposing of petitions for remission or

28

mitigation with respect to property involved in a judicial
5

1

forfeiture proceeding.”).

The remission process allows the

2

government to compensate victims of crime and non-culpable

3

individuals whose property is involved in crime, and is governed

4

by the regulations set out at 28 C.F.R. Part 9.

5

the USAO shall recommend that the defendant assets be used --

6

pursuant to the governing statute and regulations -- to

7

compensate those eligible for remission, including E-Bullion

8

account holders.

9

Australian government in the Australian Litigation are turned

Specifically,

To the extent that any assets recovered by the

10

over to the United States, the USAO shall make the same

11

recommendation for disposal of such assets.

12

4.

The United States has agreed that it shall not undertake

13

any efforts to seize or forfeit any portion of the Australian

14

Settlement Funds from any of the Respondents in the Australian

15

Litigation or their counsel in connection with any of the claims

16

made in this action.

17

5.

Claimants have agreed to release the United States of

18

America, its agencies, agents, and officers, including employees

19

and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the

20

Internal Revenue Service, from any and all claims, actions or

21

liabilities arising out of or related to the seizure and

22

retention of the defendant assets and/or the commencement of this

23

civil forfeiture action, including, without limitation, any claim

24

for attorneys’ fees or costs which may be asserted on behalf of

25

Claimants against the United States, whether pursuant to 28

26

U.S.C. § 2465 or otherwise.

27

compromise of the contested claims in this action and is made to

28

avoid further litigation of the claims and defenses of the

This consent judgment is a

6

1

parties in this action.

2

entry of this Judgment, or this Judgment, constitutes or is

3

intended to be construed as an admission of any liability or

4

wrongdoing by either of the Claimants.

5

6.

Nothing in the stipulation requesting

The Court finds that there was reasonable cause for the

6

seizure of the defendant assets and the institution of this

7

action as to the defendant assets.

8

certificate of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 as

9

to the defendant assets.

10

7.

This judgment constitutes a

Each of the parties shall bear its own fees and costs in

11

connection with the seizure of the defendant assets and this

12

action.

13

DATED: 7/30

, 2012

14

PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
15

THE HONORABLE PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18

Presented by:

19

ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
ROBERT E. DUGDALE
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division

20
21
22
23
24

/s/ Steven R. Welk
STEVEN R. WELK
P. GREG PARHAM
KATHARINE SCHONBACHLER
Assistant United States Attorneys

25
26
27
28
7