USA v. $822,694.81 in United States Currency Seized From Account No. XXXXXXXX7424 et al

Filing 170

ORDER: The motions for summary judgment 115 136 144 150 are denied. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 9/30/19. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
$822,694.81 IN UNITED STATES :
CURRENCY, SEIZED FROM ACCOUNT :
NO. XXXXXXXX7424, HELD IN THE :
NAMES OF GODWIN EZEEMO AND
:
WINIFRED C.N. EZEEMO, AT BANK :
OF AMERICA,
:
:
Defendant.
:

CASE NO. 3:13CV545(DFM)

RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a civil forfeiture action filed by the government
against $822,694.81 in account funds.1

On March 23, 2012, the

government seized the defendant property from a Bank of America
("BOA") account in the names of Godwin and Winifred Ezeemo (the
"Ezeemos").

The government alleges that the $822,694.81 (the

"defendant currency") is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 9812 because it is the product of money laundering in

1"In

a civil forfeiture case, the Government is the plaintiff,
the property is the defendant, and the claimant is an intervenor
seeking to challenge the forfeiture action." Stefan D. Cassella,
Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States 374 (2d ed. 2013).
2Section 981 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code authorizes civil
forfeiture of property "involved in," "derived from," or
"traceable to" a variety of specified federal crimes. 18 U.S.C.
§ 981(a)(1).

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) or because it is the
product of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. (ECF #1,
Verified Compl. ¶6.)
Earlier in the case, the law firm of Weycer, Kaplan, Pulaski
& Zuber ("Weycer"), Bank of New Canaan n/k/a Bankwell ("Bankwell"),
Deborah

Stuckey

(hereinafter

("Stuckey"),

the

and

"intervenors")

Leon

Li-Heng

intervened

to

Wu

("Wu")

contest

the

forfeiture alleging that they were victims of the fraud around
which the case is centered and have an ownership interest in the
defendant currency.

Each now moves for summary judgment, seeking

as relief a judgment in the amount of its loss:

Weycer seeks a

judgment in the amount of $194,340 (ECF #136); Stuckey seeks a
judgment in the amount of $40,000 (ECF #115); Bankwell seeks a
judgment in the amount of $154,210.86 (ECF #150); and Wu seeks a
judgment in the amount of $660,000. (ECF #144.)3

For the reasons

that follow, the motions are denied.
I.

Legal Standard
"A moving party is entitled to summary judgment where the

record reveals 'no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a)."

3The

Natofsky v. City of New York, 921 F.3d 337, 344 (2d

total of the amounts claimed by the intervenors exceeds
the sum in the BOA account.
2

Cir. 2019).

A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome

of the suit under the governing law," and a dispute is "genuine"
if "a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party" based on it.
242, 248 (1986).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

"The evidentiary standard that must be met by

the moving party is a high one, since a court is obliged 'to draw
all inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment
is sought,' Ramseur v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 865 F.2d 460, 465 (2d
Cir. 1989), and to 'construe the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party,' United States v. All Funds
Distributed to Weiss, 345 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2003)."

United States

v. Collado, 348 F.3d 323, 327 (2d Cir. 2003).
II.

Background
The following facts, taken from the parties' submissions, are

undisputed unless otherwise noted.

(ECF ##115, 136, 137, 144,

146, 150, 151.)
The Ezeemos are Nigerian citizens who operate businesses in
Nigeria.

They had U.S. suppliers.

When Godwin Ezeemo needed

United States currency to pay U.S suppliers, he contacted an
individual named Abubaker Lade ("Lade") in Lagos, Nigeria.

Lade

worked in Lagos as a "marketer" for a local Nigerian Bureau de
Change that handles private foreign currency transactions.

Godwin

Ezeemo used a Bureau de Change to obtain U.S. dollars because he
3

was able to move more money more quickly than he would if he used
a bank. (ECF #147-4, Ezeemo Dep. at 14.)
Ezeemo ordered from Lade "bulk" purchases of U.S. dollars
such as $500,000 at a time.

They negotiated the exchange rate.

Ezeemo gave Lade the BOA account information so Lade could deposit
or wire the U.S. dollars into the Ezeemo account.
Ezeemos' BOA account information with others.

Lade shared the
Over time, Lade

caused many deposits in varying amounts to be made into the
Ezeemos'

BOA

account.

Lade

gave

Godwin

Ezeemo

the

wire

confirmation receipt and/or deposit slip for every wire transfer
or deposit into the BOA account.

After Godwin Ezeemo saw the

online confirmation of payment into his BOA account, he paid Lade
in naira (Nigerian currency) for each transaction.

The Ezeemos

used the U.S. currency that was deposited into the BOA account to
pay for their purchases from U.S companies.
According to Godwin Ezeemo, he did not know how Lade obtained
the funds that were deposited into the Ezeemos' BOA account.

When

Ezeemo reviewed his account, it showed wire transfers from various
individuals, none of whom Ezeemo knew.

Ezeemo did not know the

source of the money nor did he know the identities of the people
making deposits.
Some of the money deposited into the BOA account was obtained
fraudulently.
4

Wu
Wu claims he was duped into transferring money into the
Ezeemos'

BOA

account.

According

to

Wu,

he

had

an

online

relationship in 2011 with a woman named "Salerno Joan," who
purported to live in London.

Salerno told Wu that she had

inherited $60 million and wanted to move to the United States,
marry him, and share her inheritance.

But first Salerno needed Wu

to pay "fees" to help Salerno obtain the inheritance. In response,
Wu wired – in various increments – $660,000 into the Ezeemos' BOA
account.4

Salerno never came to the United States, shared any

inheritance, or returned the money to Wu. (ECF #1 at 13.)
Weycer
Weycer asserts it too is a fraud victim.

In February 2012,

a person holding himself out as a mortgage broker contacted Weycer
seeking representation to recover a defaulted loan.

The purported

broker furnished Weycer with a CitiBank check payable to the firm
in the amount of $195,340.

4Wu's

He told Weycer that the check was a

wire transfers to the BOA account were as follows:
July 8, 2011
$10,000
July 15, 2011
$50,000
July 28, 2011
$100,000
August 2, 2011
$100,000
August 22, 2011
$120,000
September 20, 2011
$70,000
October 4, 2011
$60,000
October 24, 2011
$150,000
(ECF #145 at 3.)
5

partial payment on the defaulted loan and directed the firm to
keep $1,000 as a retainer and forward the remaining $194,340 to a
Bank of America account.
account.

That account was the Ezeemos' BOA

Weycer deposited the check into its Amegy Bank trust

account and on February 9, 2012 wired $194,340 to the BOA account
as instructed.

The next day, a representative of Amegy Bank

notified Weycer that the $195,340 check was fraudulent.

Weycer

was unable to recall the money it transferred to the BOA account.
Stuckey
Stuckey also alleges she was scammed.

On March 1, 2012,

Stuckey received an email from "Jimmy Keller" informing Stuckey
that she had won a $750,000 lottery.

To claim her prize money,

Stuckey was told, she needed to wire transfer $40,000 to a Bank of
America account in the name of G. Ezeemo.

On March 14, 2012,

Stuckey transferred the money to the BOA account as instructed.
(ECF #115-6.)
Bankwell
Bankwell alleges that someone impersonated one of its clients
and, posing as that client, requested a number of wire transfers.
On March 15, 2012, Bankwell transferred $154,210.86 to the BOA
account.

6

The Seizure
On

March

currency.

23,

2012,

the

government

seized

the

defendant

The government thereafter filed this civil forfeiture

action alleging that Wu, Weycer, Stuckey, Bankwell, and other
victims were duped into transferring funds into the BOA account
and that the funds in the BOA account were the product of fraud.
The Ezeemos contest the forfeiture
interest in the property.

and filed a statement of

They concede that "several people were

defrauded by a scam" but maintain that they are innocent owners
under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)5 because they had no knowledge of any
fraud and legally purchased the U.S. currency that was deposited
into their BOA account.

(ECF #119-1 at 16.)

III. Procedural History
In October 2014, Weycer filed a motion to intervene pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).6

5Section

(ECF #35.)

Over objection (ECF #38

983(d), entitled "Innocent owner defense," provides
that "[a]n innocent owner's interest in property shall not be
forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall
have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner
by a preponderance of the evidence." 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(1).
6Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) provides:
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court
must permit anyone to intervene who . . . :
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect
its interest, unless existing parties adequately
represent that interest.
7

and #40), the court (Chatigny, J.) granted Weycer's motion to
intervene,

concluding

that

Weycer

had

standing

to

intervene

because "Weycer is the beneficiary of a constructive trust in the
$194,340 it wired to the Bank of America account" and that this
"interest in the funds confers standing to contest forfeiture."7
(ECF #44.)
intervene.

Subsequently, Stuckey and Bankwell also moved to
(ECF

#55,

64.)

The

government

consented

to

intervention and the court (Chatigny, J.) granted the motions.
(ECF ##65, 69.)

The government also consented to intervention by

Wu.8 (ECF #65.)
IV.

Discussion
Weycer moves for summary judgment "against the Ezeemos and

the government," seeking a judgment in the amount of $194,340.9

7The

court stated that the "standing inquiry comprises two
elements, one constitutional and the other statutory." (ECF #44
at 5.) The court noted there "was no argument that Weycer did not
have statutory standing, which depends on compliance with the
structures of 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A) and Forfeiture Rule
G(5)(a)(i), which require a claimant to file a timely verified
statement describing his interest in the property." (ECF #44 at
7.) The contested issue was whether Weycer "could establish an
interest in the defendant property sufficient to confer Article
III standing."
(ECF #44 at 6.)
"[T]o establish Article III
standing, the claimant need only show that he or she has a
'colorable interest' in the property." Stefan D. Cassella, Asset
Forfeiture Law in the United States 416 (2d ed. 2013).
8 The docket reflects that Wu did not file a motion for
intervention. For purposes of this ruling only, the court assumes
without deciding that Wu has standing.
9The government did not file a response to the intervenors'
motions for summary judgment. However, Wu filed an opposition to
8

(ECF #136.)

In support of its request, Weycer asserts that there

is no genuine issue of material fact that (1) it was defrauded out
of $194,340; (2) a constructive trust arose in its favor on
February 9, 2012 "which has priority over every other claim in
this action"; and (3) the Ezeemos are not innocent owners because
Godwin Ezeemo "intended to and did knowingly use his Bank of
America

account

as

a

repository

for

stolen

and

fraudulently

obtained funds which include the law firm's clearly traceable
$194,340 and was unjustly enriched."

(ECF #138 at 7.)

Stuckey also moves for summary judgment.

She argues that she

"has a constructive trust over the $40,000 at issue and deserves
to recover that entire, undisturbed amount."

(ECF #115-6 at 7.)

In support, she contends that "[t]his court has already determined
[she] was entitled to a constructive trust over $40,000," and "[n]o
other person has a superior claim." (ECF #115-6 at 11.)
Bankwell argues in its motion for summary judgment that
judgment should enter in its favor against the Ezeemos and the
government in the amount of $154,210.86.

In support of its

requested relief, Bankwell asserts that there is no dispute that
it was duped out of $154,210.86 and was the "victim of the Ezeemos'

each (ECF ##147, 159), as did the Ezeemos. (ECF ##122, 162, 165,
167.)
9

inequitable conduct and fraudulent use of the Bank of America
account." (ECF #152 at 15.)
Finally, Wu argues that he is entitled to summary judgment in
the amount of $660,000 because "a constructive trust has arisen"
as to the funds he "transferred into the scam amount" and because
the Ezeemos are not innocent owners. (ECF #145.)
A.
In

Standing v. Merits
the

pending

motions,

the

intervenors

argue

that

a

constructive trust was imposed upon the BOA account in the amount
of their loss and ask for their money.

This argument is predicated

on a misapprehension of Judge Chatigny's ruling on the motions to
intervene.

The court's ruling was not a decision on the merits of

the intervenors' constructive trust claims.
adjudicate ownership of the defendant currency.

The court did not
Rather, in ruling

on the motions to intervene, the court determined only that the
intervenors had made a sufficient showing of a property interest
in the funds to confer standing to challenge the government's
forfeiture action.
determines

(ECF #44 at 12.)

whether

the

claimant

"Standing is a question that
may

properly

invoke

the

jurisdiction of the federal courts to determine the merits of the
underlying dispute."

United States v. $557,933.89, More or Less,

in U.S. Funds, 287 F.3d 66, 78 (2d Cir. 2002).

"The function of

standing in a forfeiture action is therefore truly threshold only
10

- to ensure that the government is put to its proof only where
someone with a legitimate interest contests the forfeiture."
at 79.

Id.

"Thus, the only question that the courts need assess

regarding a claimant's standing is whether he or she has shown the
required

'facially

colorable

interest

.

.

.

not

ultimately proves the existence of that interest."

whether
Id.

he
See

Brennan v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 260 F.3d 123, 129 (2d Cir. 2001)
("an application to intervene cannot be resolved by reference to
the ultimate merits of the claims which the intervenor wishes to
assert following intervention, but rather turns on whether the
applicant has demonstrated that its application is timely, that it
has an interest in the subject of the action, that disposition of
the action might as a practical matter impair its interest, and
that

representation

by

protect that interest.")

existing

parties

would

not

adequately

Accordingly, the intervenors' reliance

on Judge Chatigny's ruling as authority for their requested relief
is misplaced.
B.

Competing Ownership Claims

Each of the intervenors asserts that its ownership interest
is superior to the other victims10 and superior to the Ezeemos'

10In

recognition of the fact that the amount sought by the
intervenors exceeds the amount of the defendant currency, Wu
objects to the other intervenors' motions for summary judgment.
He argues that the court should not recognize a constructive trust
11

interest as well.
intervenors'

The Ezeemos, in turn, vigorously contest the

ownership

claims 11 and

contend

that

the

entire

contents of the BOA account should be returned to them because
they are innocent owners.
"[I]n

a

civil

forfeiture

action,

the

government

is

the

plaintiff, and it is the government's right to forfeiture that is
the

sole

cause

of

action

adjudicated."

United

States

v.

$557,933.89, More or Less, in U.S. Funds, 287 F.3d 66, 79 (2d Cir.
2002).

None of the

intervenors address

ownership claims should be resolved.

how their

competing

They cite no relevant legal

authority and offer no procedural framework for deciding the
priority of their asserted interests within the context of a civil
forfeiture action.

More fundamentally, genuine issues of material

fact exist as to the rightful ownership of the defendant currency.
See ECF #169.

On the present record, the court is constrained to

deny the motions.
V.

Conclusion
For these reasons, the motions for summary judgment (ECF #115,

because it would result in an equitable result. Wu contends that
"should the defendant currency be ordered forfeited to the United
States," a "pro rata distribution" is the "most equitable and fair
[result] [for] the defrauded parties/claimants." (ECF #147 at 2.)
11The Ezeemos argue that the intervenors "may have viable
claim(s) against the Ezeemos" but that in a civil forfeiture
action, intervenors "are limited to contesting forfeiture" to the
government. (ECF #162 at 4 n.2.)
12

136, 144, 150) are DENIED.
SO

ORDERED

at

Hartford,

Connecticut,

this

30th

day

of

September, 2019.
_____________/s/__________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

13