UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 8 GILCREASE LANE, QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 et al

Filing 111

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Cowden, William)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 8 GILCREASE LANE, QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 et al

Doc. 111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 8 GILCREASE LANE, QUINCY FLORIDA 32351, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 08-1345 (RMC) ECF

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION (DKT #51) TO MEMBERS' AND VICTIMS' MOTIONS TO INTERVENE Plaintiff, the United States of America, respectfully informs the Court of the following supplemental authority in support of its opposition to various would-be intervenors' efforts to appear in this matter, apparently to seek dismissal of this forfeiture case, and either a return, to Mr. Bowdoin, of funds that they provided to him, or a return to them of funds seized from bank accounts that, before their seizure, were controlled by Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr. In United States v. Wilson, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2009 WL 2424623 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009), the district court out of the 9th Circuit rejected fraud victims' efforts to intervene in criminal forfeiture's ancillary proceedings because, even accepting the 9th Circuit's Boylan's conclusion, that a constructive trust was deemed to relate back to the time when an offense was committed, which the district court recognized was inaccurate, to prevail against a forfeiture under Section 853(n)(6)(A), a petitioner must establish an interest in a property that existed before the crime occurred. A property interest arising "simultaneously with the Government's interest," not before it, comes

Dockets.Justia.com

too late, as the 9th Circuit recognized in Hooper1, for victim-petitioners to prevail under Section 853(n)(6)(A). Moreover, under a Prudential Standing analysis, "the interests of crime victims in receiving restitution are not in the zone of interests implicated in [the forfeiture statute], even if they have Article III standing under Boylan.2" (Citing United States v. Lazarenko, 476 F.3d 642 (9th Cir. 2007.) Respectfully submitted, _/s/_______________________________________ CHANNING D. PHILLIPS Acting United States Attorney _/s/_______________________________________ VASU B. MUTHYALA, DC Bar #496935 Assistant United States Attorney _/s/_______________________________________ WILLIAM R. COWDEN, DC Bar #426301 Senior Trial Counsel Department of Justice, Criminal Division Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section 1400 New York Avenue, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20530 202-514-1263 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing Opposition to be served by means of the Court's ECF system on this 4th day of September 2009 upon all counsel or parties of record.

_/s/_________________________ William R. Cowden

1

United States v. Hooper, 229 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 2000). United States v. $4,224,958.57 ("Boylan"), 392 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004). 2

2