UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FUNDS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF $56,634 IN U.S. CURRENCY et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/4/2015. (lcabj2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FUNDS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE )
AMOUNT OF $56,634 IN U.S.
)
CURRENCY ON DEPOSIT IN
)
BANESCO INTERNATIONAL,
)
PANAMA, ACCOUNT #201000274785, )
TITLED IN THE NAME OF
)
INVERSIONES CEDENO C.A., AND/OR )
PROPERTY TRACEABLE
)
THERETO, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Civil Action No. 12-0259 (ABJ)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before this Court is plaintiff United States of America’s motion for partial
default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) against defendants in rem
(1) Funds Up to and Including the Amount of $113,676 in U.S. Currency on Deposit in
Credicorp Bank, Panama, Account #4010188813, Titled in the Name of Rodolfo Raschid
Velazco Kassen, and/or Property Traceable Thereto; and (2) Funds Up to and Including the
Amount of $38,000 in U.S. Currency on Deposit in Banesco S.A., Panama, Account
#120000046868, Titled in the Name of Labegar Investment, Inc., and/or Property Traceable
Thereto (collectively, “defendant bank accounts”). Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Default J. and Order of
Forfeiture [Dkt. # 45] (“Pl.’s Mot.”).
Plaintiff filed a verified complaint in the instant case, seeking civil forfeiture of several
bank accounts pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(A), 984. Compl. [Dkt. # 3]. Following the

procedures for notice by publication set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”) that govern in rem
forfeitures, plaintiff published notice of this civil forfeiture action on the government forfeiture
website, www.forfeiture.gov, for thirty consecutive days starting on November 7, 2014.
Supplemental Rule G(4)(a); Decl. of Publication [Dkt. # 42]; Pl.’s Supp. Status Report (Nov. 7,
2014) [Dkt. # 41] at 1; see also Pl.’s Mot. ¶ 6.
Plaintiff also undertook efforts to send direct notice, as required by Supplemental Rule
G(4)(b)(iii)(A), to Rodolfo Raschid Velazco Kassen and Labegar Investment, Inc. – the only
persons or entities known to the government to have any claim or legal interest in the defendant
bank accounts – by asking Panama to restrain the funds in the defendant bank accounts and
requesting from Panama the account holder information for the bank accounts. Pl.’s Mot. ¶¶ 7–
10. Panama did restrain the funds almost two years ago, but it did not provide plaintiff with any
contact information for the account holders. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10. Plaintiff again requested contact
information for the account holders in June 2013, but it has received no response from Panama.
Id. ¶ 8. No person or entity has filed a claim to the defendant bank accounts within the time
period permitted by the Supplemental Rules, and the time for filing a claim has expired. See
Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(ii).

The defendant bank accounts remain unclaimed and

undefended.
Plaintiff moved for an entry of default against the defendant bank accounts, which the
Clerk of Court granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) on January 21, 2015,
see Clerk’s Entry of Default [Dkt. # 44], and plaintiff then moved this Court to enter a default
judgment. Pl.’s Mot. After a default has been entered, a court may enter a default judgment
order pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2). “The determination of whether default judgment is appropriate

2

is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension
Fund v. Auxier Drywall, LLC, 531 F. Supp. 2d 56, 57 (D.D.C. 2008), citing Jackson v. Beech,
636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Upon entry of default by the clerk of the court, the
“defaulting defendant is deemed to admit every well-pleaded allegation in the complaint.” Int’l
Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. RW Amrine Drywall Co., Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d
26, 30 (D.D.C. 2002) (citation omitted).

“Although the default establishes a defendant’s

liability, the court is required to make an independent determination of the sum to be awarded
unless the amount of damages is certain.” Id. (citations omitted). Accordingly, when moving for
a default judgment, the plaintiff must prove its entitlement to the amount of monetary damages
requested. Id. (citation omitted). “In ruling on such a motion, the court may rely on detailed
affidavits or documentary evidence to determine the appropriate sum for the default judgment.”
Id. (citation omitted).
Here, plaintiff has shown that it is entitled to an entry of default judgment against the
defendant bank accounts and an order of forfeiture with respect to the funds and interest accrued
in those accounts. Plaintiff’s verified complaint establishes the facts necessary to support a civil
forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(A), 984, and plaintiff has demonstrated that it has
satisfied all the procedural requirements set forth in the Supplemental Rules. It is true that
plaintiff was not able to provide direct notice to Kassen and Labegar Investment. Pl.’s Mot. ¶ 7.
However, plaintiff undertook efforts to provide notice of the civil forfeiture action “by means
reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant[s],” as required by Supplemental Rule
G(4)(b)(iii)(A), by having Panama restrain the accounts, attempting to obtain the account
holders’ contact information, and posting public notice of the forfeiture action on the government
forfeiture website. Id. ¶¶ 6–10. The Court finds that these efforts to notify Kassen and Labegar

3