United States of America v. Approximately $693,522.14 In Funds From Account #544-7-48893 Held In The Name of Emirates NBD At JPMorgan Chase Bank

Filing 38

ORDER re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment of the United States filed by United States of America (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2011)

United States of America v. Approximately $693,522.14 In... Emirates NBD At JPMorgan Chase Bank

Doc. 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. APPROXIMATELY $693,522.14 IN FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT ENDING IN 8892 HELD IN THE NAME OF EMIRATES NBD AT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, Defendant.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, and EMIRATES NBD BANK, Claimants.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) Case No. 10-3374 SC ) ) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

United States District Court

Plaintiff United States of America ("Plaintiff") commenced this in rem action, seeking forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and (k) of $693,522.14 held in the name of Emirates NBD at JPMorgan Chase Bank. ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Now Plaintiff

has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

ECF No. 29 ("Mot.").

Plaintiff's Motion is unopposed, as Claimants First Republic Bank ("First Republic") and Emirates NBD Bank ("Emirates Bank") (collectively, "Claimants") have filed Statements of NonOpposition. ECF Nos. 35, 36.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff alleges that $693,522.14 was fraudulently transferred by an unknown party from a First Republic bank account held by California residents Stuart and Gina Peterson to an Emirates Bank account held by Airman Trading FZE, a United Arab Emirates entity. Mot. at 1. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges wire

fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; bank fraud, id. § 1344; and identity theft, id. § 1028(a). Mot. at 1. Plaintiff claims that under 18

U.S.C. § 981(k)(1)(A), forfeiture of $693,522.14 taken from Emirates Bank's interbank account with JPMorgan Chase Bank, its covered financial institution, is warranted. Compl. ¶ 9.

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff has filed Proof of Service of the Motion and Complaint on Claimants, as well as on potential claimants Airman Trading FZE and Airman Trading, LLC -- neither of whom have participated in this action. ECF Nos. 9, 10, 32.

The parties ask the Court to issue a detailed eight-page order granting Plaintiff's Motion and making a number of factual findings based on the evidence submitted in support of the Motion. 34-1 ("Prop. Order"). ECF No.

Plaintiff claims that a detailed order is

required because Emirates Bank is a defendant in parallel proceedings brought by Airman Trading FZE before a United Arab Emirates ("UAE") tribunal, and may be subject to double liability for the $693,522.14 if it is unable to prove fraud. ECF No. 34.

Having reviewed the documents and evidence submitted, the Court finds the detailed proposed order to be inappropriate and unsupported by the record. The Court would order summary judgment

for Plaintiff on the basis of non-opposition of Claimants, but the Statements of Non-Opposition filed by Claimants appear to predicate non-opposition on the Court's issuance of such a detailed order.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

Accordingly, Claimants have ten (10) days to file amended statements in which they unambiguously state their non-opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. so, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion. Should they fail to do

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3