United States of America v. $14,000.00 in US Currency
Filing
35
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. 2. Notice of this action has been given in accordance with law. All potential claimants to the defendant currency, other than Majeed, are deemed to have admitted the allegations of the Complaint. The allegations set out in the Complaint are sufficient to establish a basis for forfeiture. 3. The United States of Ame rica shall have judgment as to $7,000.00 of the defendant currency and all interest earned on the entirety of the defendant currency since seizure, and no other person or entity shall have any right, title or interest therein. The United States is ordered to dispose of said funds in accordance with law. (see document image for further details) ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (ad)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
EILEEN M. DECKER
United States Attorney
LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
STEVEN R. WELK
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section
KATHARINE SCHONBACHLER
Assistant United States Attorney
Asset Forfeiture Section
California Bar No. 222875
Federal Courthouse, 14th Floor
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-3172
Facsimile: (213) 894-7177
E-mail: Katie.Schonbachler@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EASTERN DIVISION
18
19
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
20
Plaintiff,
21
v.
22
$14,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
23
Defendant.
24 _________________________________
25 ABDUL MAJEED,
26
27
28
JS-6
Claimant.
No. EDCV 14-01380-JGB (DTBx)
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF
FORFEITURE
1
This civil forfeiture action was commenced on July 7, 2014 against the defendant
2
$14,000.00 in U.S. Currency seized on February 4, 2014 in Upland, California (the
3
“defendant currency”). Abdul Majeed (“Majeed”) filed a claim of interest in the
4
defendant currency on August 14, 2014, and an answer to the complaint on August 14,
5
2014. No other parties have appeared in this case and the time for filing claims of
6
interest and answers has expired.
7
Plaintiff United States of America and Majeed have reached an agreement that is
8
dispositive of the action. The parties hereby request that the Court enter this Consent
9
Judgment of Forfeiture.
10
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
11
1.
12
13
This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this
action.
2.
Notice of this action has been given in accordance with law. All potential
14
claimants to the defendant currency, other than Majeed, are deemed to have admitted the
15
allegations of the Complaint. The allegations set out in the Complaint are sufficient to
16
establish a basis for forfeiture.
17
3.
The United States of America shall have judgment as to $7,000.00 of the
18
defendant currency and all interest earned on the entirety of the defendant currency since
19
seizure, and no other person or entity shall have any right, title or interest therein. The
20
United States is ordered to dispose of said funds in accordance with law.
21
4.
$7,000.00 of the defendant currency, without any interest earned by the
22
government on the full amount of the defendant currency, shall be returned to Majeed by
23
either check or wire transfer within 60 days of the date that the Court enters the Consent
24
Judgment. If the United States elects to make the payment by check, the check will be
25
payable to “Abdul Majeed” and mailed to Anikó R. Hoover, Esq., 337 N. Vineyard
26
Avenue, 4th Floor, Suite 530, Ontario, California 91764. If the United States elects to
27
make the payment by wire transfer, the funds will be wire transferred to the account that
28
Majeed and his attorney provide account and routing numbers for. Majeed and his
2
1
attorney shall provide any and all information, including personal identifiers, needed to
2
process the return of these funds according to federal law.
3
5.
Majeed agrees to release the United States of America, its agencies, agents,
4
and officers, including employees, officers and agents of the United States Secret
5
Service from any and all claims, actions or liabilities arising out of or related to this
6
action or the underlying seizures, including, without limitation, any claim for attorney’s
7
fees, costs or interest which may be asserted on behalf of Majeed, whether pursuant to
8
28 U.S.C. § 2465 or otherwise. If Majeed submitted a petition for remission to the
9
defendant currency in any proceedings, Majeed hereby stipulates to withdraw the
10
petition, and waive any rights he may have to seek remission or mitigation of the
11
forfeiture of the defendant currency.
12
6.
The Court finds that there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the
13
defendant currency and institution of these proceedings. This judgment shall be
14
construed as a certificate of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465.
ble
15
16
17
Dated: December 5, 2016
THE HONORABLE JESUS G. BERNAL
HONORABLE JESUS G.
E
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED
E
18
19
20
21
22
23
[Signatures of parties appear on the next page]
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
Approved as to Form and Content:
2
Dated: _December 1, 2016
3
4
5
6
EILEEN M. DECKER
United States Attorney
LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
STEVEN R. WELK
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section
/s/ Katharine Schonbachler
KATHARINE SCHONBACHLER
Assistant United States Attorney
7
8
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America
10
11
12
Dated: _November 30, 2016
13
/s/ Aniko Rushakoff Hoover
ANIKO RUSHAKOFF HOOVER, ESQ.
Counsel for Claimant
ABDUL MAJEED
14
15
16
17
18
19
Dated: _November 30, 2016
/s/ Abdul Majeed
ABDUL MAJEED
Claimant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?