United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 1824

ORDER denying 1452 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 3/23/21. (McHugh, C.)

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 1824 Filed 03/23/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
Plaintiff,
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
March 23, 2021
Defendant, and
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI AHMED
2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUNITY TRUST;
DIYA HOLDINGS LLC; DIYA REAL HOLDINGS, LLC;
I.I. 1, a minor child, by and through his next friends
IFTIKAR and SHALINI AHMED, his parents; I.I. 2, a
minor child, by and through his next friends
IFTIKAR and SHALINI AHMED, his parents; and I.I.
3, a minor child, by and through his next friends
IFTIKAR and SHALINI AHMED, his parents,
Relief Defendants.
RULING DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
MOTION FOR FEES TO RETAIN COUNSEL FOR BOND FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS
Defendant moves the Court to reconsider its denial [Doc. # 1425] of Defendant’s
motion for a release of fees [Doc. # 1332] for representation at his bond forfeiture
proceeding related to his pending criminal insider trading case in the District of
Massachusetts, No. 1:15-cr-10131-NMG. (Def.’s Mot. for Reconsideration [Doc. # 1452].)
The Court denied his motion, holding that Mr. Ahmed’s bond forfeiture hearing was not a
critical stage of criminal prosecution for which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
attached because it could “see no way in which these bond forfeiture proceedings could
affect Defendant’s right to a fair trial or to meaningfully cross-examine witnesses.” (Ruling
Denying Def.’s Mot. for Fees to Retain Counsel for Criminal Matter [Doc. # 1425] at 7.)
In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Ahmed argues that bond forfeiture is a civil
proceeding for which he claims to be entitled to legal representation. (Def.’s Mot. at 2-3.)

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 1824 Filed 03/23/21 Page 2 of 2

While Defendant is correct that, in the Second Circuit, “forfeiture of a bail bond functions as
damages for breach of the civil contract, not as a punishment for the commission of a
criminal offense,” United States v. Brooks, 872 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2017), this case arises in the
District of Massachusetts, which is bound by First Circuit precedent and which held the
bond forfeiture proceeding to be “a criminal matter.” United States v. Ahmed, 414 F. Supp.
3d 188, 190 (D. Mass. 2019). This Court defers to the reasoned analysis of the District of
Massachusetts in determining the criminal nature of the bond forfeiture proceeding and
holds again that Mr. Ahmed’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not triggered at this
stage of the proceeding. Thus, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. # 1452] is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________/s/_______________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 23rd day of March 2021.

2