Unites States v. Pokerstars, et al

Filing 207

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 206 MOTION to Strike Document No. 77 (Seigal Class Claim).. Document filed by United States Of America. (Cowley, Jason)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
Plaintiff,

:

- v. -

:

POKERSTARS, et al.

:

Defendants;

11 Civ. 2564 (LBS)

:

ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE
ASSETS OF POKERSTARS, et al.;

:
:

Defendants-in-rem.
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
THE CLAIM AND DISMISS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF
THE CLASS OF U.S. RESIDENTS WHO HELD BALANCES
IN THE FULL TILT PLAYER ACCOUNTS ON APRIL 15, 2011

PREET BHARARA,
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York

Sharon Cohen Levin
Jason H. Cowley
Michael D. Lockard
Assistant United States Attorneys
- of counsel -

Table of Contents
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A.

The Criminal Indictment of Isai Scheinberg and
Others for Various Gambling, Fraud, and Money
Laundering Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B.

The in Rem Forfeiture and Civil Money Laundering
Complaint.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

C.

Claimants’ Claim, Answer and Counter Claim .. . . . . 7

ARGUMENT
I.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CLAIMANTS LACK STANDING TO FILE A CLAIM. . . . . . . . . . 7
A.

Relevant Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B.

Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

THE COUNTER CLAIM SHOULD BE DISMISSED .. . . . . . . . .

14

A.

Relevant Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

B.

Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

II.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum of
law in support of its motion, pursuant to Rule 12(b) and (c) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule G(8)(c) of the
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims, to strike
the claim and to dismiss the counter claim filed in this in rem
forfeiture action by the class of United States residents who
held balances in the Full Tilt Player accounts on April 15, 2011
(“Claimants”).

The defendants-in-rem in this matter include,

among others, all right title and interest in the assets of
several online gambling businesses, including numerous overseas
bank accounts controlled by Full Tilt Poker.
Claimants filed a claim on October 19, 2011, contesting
the forfeiture of certain funds they allege to be part of the
Defendant Property and asserting an interest in the following:
1.

Account numbered GB81 RBOS 6095 4234
0877 66 held at NatWest, in the name of
Raymond Bitar, and all funds traceable
thereto;

2.

Account numbered 7655741861 held at
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in the name of
HH Lederer Consulting LLC, and all funds
traceable thereto;

3.

Account
held at
of Man,
and all

4.

Account numbered 40039049628 held at
Citibank, N.A., in the name of Chris
Ferguson, and all funds traceable
thereto; and

numbered GB56LOYD30166314010402
Lloyds TSB International, Isle
in the name of Howard Lederer,
funds traceable thereto;

5.

Account numbered CH87 0875 5057 0684
0010 0 held at Pictet & Co Bankers,
Switzerland, in the name of Telamonian
Ajax Trust, and all funds traceable
thereto.

(1 through 5 collectively, “the Defendant Property”).
p. 3.

Claim at

On November 10, 2011, the Claimants filed an answer to the

in rem portion of the Complaint in this matter as well as a
counter claim for costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys’ fees.
Claimants’ claim should be stricken because Claimants
lacks standing to assert a claim for the defendants-in-rem in
this action.

Claimants have no legal interest in any assets of

Full Tilt Poker, nor the third-party payment processors involved.
Claimants also have no interest in, or authority over, the bank
accounts controlled by these poker companies or their third-party
payment processors.

While Claimants may have a claim against the

poker companies for the payment of the amount of money credited
to their online gambling account, this does not confer standing
on Claimants in this in rem forfeiture action to file a claim for
any of the specific assets of Full Tilt Poker or their payment
processors.

In their claim, Claimants do little more than assert

a debt allegedly owed to them by Full Tilt Poker, rather than any
specific or cognizable interest in the specific property sought
to be forfeited.

Additionally, even assuming that Claimants had

standing to file a claim in this matter, their counter claim has

2

no basis in law and is barred by sovereign immunity.
BACKGROUND
A.

The Criminal Indictment of Isai Scheinberg and Others for
Various Gambling, Fraud, and Money Laundering Offenses
On or about March 10, 2011, a superseding indictment,

S3 10 Cr. 336 (LAK) (the “Indictment”) was filed under seal in
the Southern District of New York, charging Isai Scheinberg,
Raymond Bitar, Scott Tom, Brent Beckley, Nelson Burtnick, Paul
Tate, Ryan Lang, Bradley Franzen, Ira Rubin, Chad Elie, and Jason
Campos with conspiring to violate the Unlawful Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”), 31 U.S.C. § 5363, in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, 371; violating the UIGEA; operating
illegal gambling businesses, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 1955 and 2; conspiring to commit wire fraud
and bank fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1349; and conspiring to launder money, in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h).
As set forth in the Indictment, from at least in or
about November 2006, the three leading internet poker companies
doing business in the United States were PokerStars, Full Tilt
Poker, and Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet (collectively, “the Poker
Companies”).

(Ind. ¶ 1).

PokerStars, headquartered in the Isle

of Man, provided real-money gambling through its website,
pokerstars.com, to United States customers.

PokerStars did

business through several privately held corporations and other
3

entities.

(Ind. ¶ 4).

Full Tilt Poker, headquartered in

Ireland, provided real-money gambling through its website,
fulltiltpoker.com, to United States customers.

Full Tilt Poker

did business through several privately held corporations and
other entities.

(Ind. ¶ 5).

Absolute Poker, headquartered in

Costa Rica, provided real-money gambling through its websites,
absolutepoker.com and ultimatebet.com, to United States
customers.

Absolute Poker did business through several privately

held corporations and other entities.

(Ind. ¶ 6).

As described in the Indictment, because internet
gambling businesses such as those operated by the Poker Companies
were illegal under United States law, internet gambling
companies, including the Poker Companies, were not permitted by
United States banks to open bank accounts in the United States to
receive proceeds from United States gamblers.

Instead, the

principals of the Poker Companies operated through various
deceptive means designed to trick United States banks and
financial institutions into processing gambling transactions on
the Poker Companies’ behalf.

(Ind. ¶ 16).

For example, as described more fully in the Indictment,
the defendants, and others, worked with and directed others to
deceive credit card issuers and to disguise poker payments made
using credit cards so that the issuing banks would process the
payments.

(Ind. ¶¶ 17-18).

These deceptive and fraudulent

4

practices included, for example, creating phony non-gambling
companies that the Poker Companies used to initiate the credit
card charges (Ind. ¶ 19), and creating pre-paid cards designed
for United States gamblers to use to transfer funds to the Poker
Companies and other gambling companies, with the purpose of the
cards disguised by fake internet web sites and phony consumer
“reviews” of the cards making it appear that the cards had some
other, legitimate, purpose.

(Ind. ¶ 20).

In addition, as described more fully in the Indictment,
the defendants, and others, worked with and directed others to
develop another method of deceiving United States banks and
financial institutions into processing their respective Poker
Companies’ internet gambling transactions through fraudulent echeck processing.

(Ind. ¶ 21).

The Poker Companies used poker

processors to establish payment processing accounts at various
United States banks and disguised from the banks the fact that
the accounts would be used to process payments for internet poker
transactions by making the transactions appear to relate to phony
internet merchants.
B.

(Ind. ¶¶ 22-26).

The In Rem Forfeiture and Civil Money Laundering Complaint
On or about April 14, 2011, this action was commenced

by the filing of a sealed in rem forfeiture and civil money
laundering complaint (the “Complaint”).

The Complaint sought the

forfeiture of all right, title and interest in the assets of the

5

Poker Companies, including but not limited to certain specific
properties set forth in the Complaint.

As alleged in the

Complaint, the defendants-in-rem are subject to forfeiture
(1) pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1955(d), as
properties used in violation of the provisions of Section 1955;
(2) pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
981(a)(1)(C), as properties constituting or derived from proceeds
traceable to violations of Section 1955; (3) pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), as properties
constituting or derived from proceeds traceable to a conspiracy
to commit wire fraud and bank fraud; and (4) pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(A), as properties
involved in transactions and attempted transactions in violation
of Sections 1956 and 1957, or property traceable to such
property.

The Complaint also sought civil monetary penalties for

money laundering against the Poker Companies and the entities
that operated those companies for the conduct laid out above.
On or about September 21, 2011, before Claimants filed
their claim, answer and counter claim, the United States filed an
Amended Complaint in this action, adding additional fraud
allegations against Full Tilt Poker and the members of its Board
of Directors, and naming certain assets of these board members as
defendant property.

6

C.

Claimants’ Claim, Answer and Counter Claim
On or about October 19, 2011, Claimants filed a claim

with respect to the Defendant Property (the “Claim”).
Entry 77).

(Docket

The Claim asserts that “[t]he Claimants interest in

the [Defendant] [P]roperty is equitable.

Class Members have a

rightful and superior interest in the amount of up to $150
million held or traceable to” the Defendant Property.1

Claim ¶

4.
On or about November 10, 2011, Claimants filed an
answer to the Complaint, which included allegations that they
label as affirmative defenses, and a counter claim for costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees.

(Docket

Entry 102).
ARGUMENT
I.

CLAIMANTS LACKS STANDING TO FILE A CLAIM
A.

Relevant Law
“In order to contest a governmental forfeiture action,

claimants must have both standing under the statute or statutes
governing their claims and standing under Article III of the
Constitution as required for any action brought in federal
court.”

United States v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., 166 F.3d 522, 526

1

Claimant does not identify whether these amounts
represent the value of funds transferred to the poker companies
(through third-party payment processors), the value of winnings
from online gambling transactions, or both.
7

(2d Cir. 1999).

Standing is a threshold issue.

If the claimant

lacks standing, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider his
challenge of the forfeiture.

The burden of proof to establish

sufficient standing rests with the claimant.

Mercado v. U.S.

Customs Service, 873 F.2d 641, 644 (2d Cir. 1989); United States
v. One 1986 Volvo 750T, 765 F. Supp. 90, 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1991);
United States v. One 1982 Porsche 928, 732 F. Supp. 447, 451
(S.D.N.Y. 1990) (abbreviated title).

Where the claimant’s own

allegations are insufficient to demonstrate standing, a motion to
strike his claim should be granted.

See United States v. $38,570

U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1111-13 (5th Cir. 1992) (“Unless
claimant can first establish his standing he has no right to put
the government to its proof”).
To have statutory standing, a claimant in a civil
forfeiture proceeding must comply with the procedures laid out in
Supplemental Rule G.

To have constitutional standing, however, a

claimant must demonstrate an adequate “interest” in the
forfeitable property.

“If the claimant cannot show a sufficient

interest in the property to give him Article III standing there
is no case or controversy, in the constitutional sense, capable
of adjudication in the federal courts.”

United States v. New

Silver Palace Restaurant, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 440, 442 (E.D.N.Y.
1992) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations
omitted).

See also United States v. U.S. Currency, $81,000.00,

8

189 F.3d 28, 35 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. $9,041,598.68,
163 F.3d 238, 244-45 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Contents
of Accounts (Friko Corporation), 971 F.2d 974, 985 (3d Cir.
1992).
Thus, “[t]o establish standing, ‘the claimant must
demonstrate that he has a colorable ownership, possessory or
security interest in at least a portion of the defendant
property.’”

United States v. One Silicon Valley Bank Account, 05

Civ. 295, 2007 WL 1594484, at *2 (W.D. Mich. June 1, 2007)
(quoting United States v. $38,852.00, 328 F. Supp. 2d 768, 769
(N.D. Ohio 2004)); see also United States v. Contents of Account
Numbers 208-06070 and 208-06068-1-2, 847 F. Supp. 329, 333
(S.D.N.Y. 1994); One 1982 Porsche 928, 732 F. Supp. at 451.

An

unsecured creditor does not have a legal interest in any
particular property owned by the debtor, and does not have
standing to contest the forfeiture of the debtor’s property.
Cambio Exacto, S.A., 166 F.3d at 529 (person to whom a money
transmitter owes money lacks standing as a general creditor to
contest forfeiture of money transmitter’s account).
In fact, in a very similar circumstance with another
claimant in this matter, this Court recently held that poker
players similarly situated to the Claimants are nothing more than
unsecured general creditors that lack standing to contest the
instant forfeiture action. See Docket Entry 184.

9

B.

Discussion
Under these established legal principles, Claimants’

allegations are insufficient to demonstrate standing in this
matter.

By Claimants’ own allegations, Full Tilt (or Full Tilt

insiders) has possession of the funds they refer to in their
Claim, and the Claimants do not allege that they retained any
security interest in the deposits made to Full Tilt Poker.

Even

accepting allegations put forth in the Claim as true, any
ownership interest the Claimants had in any particular funds
transferred to the poker companies was lost, as a matter of law
for purposes of this action, once they allowed their monies to be
withdrawn from their account by a payment processor, deposited
into processor accounts, and then possibly transferred to
overseas accounts belonging to Full Tilt Poker.
It is well settled under the law of New York and other
states2 that once someone deposits funds in a bank or investment
account –- or an account held by another -– they then lack a
particularized interest in those funds.

See Peoples Westchester

Sav. Bank v. FDIC, 961 F.2d 327, 330 (2d Cir. 1992) (as soon as
money is deposited, it is deemed to be the property of the bank,

2

In analyzing the question of standing in a forfeiture
action, it is appropriate to look to state law to determine the
nature of the property interest involved. United States v.
Contents of Account Number 11671-8 in the Name of Latino
Americana Express, 90 Civ. 8154 (MBM), 1992 WL 98840, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. May 6, 1992).
10

and the relationship between the bank and the depositor is that
of debtor and creditor); United States v. All Funds On Deposit In
the Name of Khan, 955 F. Supp. 23, 26-27 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)
(abbreviated title) (under New York Law, an individual loses
title to funds once the funds are deposited into an account held
in the name of a third person); United States v. $79,000 at Bank
of New York, No. 96 Civ. 3493 (MBM), 1996 WL 648934, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 1996) (abbreviated title) (same).

Claimants

fail to allege in their Claim that they have any secured interest
in the funds they seek.
Once Claimants voluntarily transferred their funds to a
third-party payment processor, who, in turn possibly transferred
those funds to Full Tilt Poker, Claimants became simply unsecured
creditors of these entities and lack standing to file a Claim in
this matter.

As soon as the money was removed from Claimants’

accounts and deposited into accounts controlled by Full Tilt
Poker or its payment processors, it became the property of the
bank.

The relationship between the bank and the depositor is

that of debtor and creditor, with the depositor having a
contractual right to repayment of his debt on demand.

Peoples

Westchester Sav. Bank, 961 F.2d at 330; Swan Brewery Co. Ltd. v.
U.S. Trust Co. of New York, 832 F. Supp. 714, 718 (S.D.N.Y.
1993); 1 W. Schlichting, T. Rice and J. Cooper, Banking Law §
9.05 (1983).

But this contractual right belongs to the account

11

holder; it is the account holder who has the power to exercise
dominion and control over the funds in his account.

See N.Y.

Banking Law § 134(5); New York Trust Co. v. Braham, 126 Misc.
462, 213 N.Y.S. 678, 679 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1926); see also 9
C.J.S., Banks and Banking § 293 (1996) (“Ordinarily, where a
deposit is made by one person in the name of another, the rights
with respect to such deposit belong to the person in whose name
the deposit is made, even though the latter is unaware of the
deposit, and the bank may not dispute his or her title or
rights”).
The Claimants here do not allege that they were an
authorized signatory for any bank accounts of payment processors
or Full Tilt Poker.

Nor do they allege that they had any

contractual relationship with any deposit banks of third party
payment processors or the overseas deposit banks of Full Tilt
Poker in which the funds at issue were possibly held.
Ultimately, Claimants do little more than allege a general,
unsecured debt allegedly owed to them by Full Tilt Poker.
The Claimants may have civil claims against Full Tilt
Poker for the amounts of money identified in their claim.

This,

however, is simply a general unsecured debt -- not a claim to the
specific res before the Court.

As the Second Circuit noted, “an

interest ‘in’ property must be an interest in a particular,
specific asset, as opposed to a general interest in an entire

12

forfeited estate or account.”

United States v. Ribadeneira, 105

F.3d 833, 836 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam).

“It is

well-established that general unsecured creditors do not have
standing to contest the forfeiture of their debtor’s property.”
United States v. 105,800 Shares of Common Stock of FirstRock
Bancorp, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 1101, 1117 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also
DSI Associates, LLC v. United States, 496 F.3d 175, 184 (2d Cir.
2007)(a general creditor does not possess a “legal right, title,
or interest in the property that was forfeited as required for
standing under § 853(n)(6)(A)”); Cambio Exacto, S.A., 166 F.3d at
529 (person to whom a money transmitter owes money lacks standing
as a general creditor to contest forfeiture of money
transmitter’s account); United States v. BCCI Holdings
(Luxembourg), S.A., 46 F.3d 1185, 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“a
general creditor can never have an interest in specific forfeited
property”); United States v. Schwimmer, 968 F.2d 1570, 1581 (2d
Cir. 1992).
In analogous circumstances, courts have dismissed
claims to funds in a bank account asserted by persons other than
the account holder, even though the funds had been promised to
the claimant or had been given to the account holder by the
claimant.

In United States v. Contents of Account Number 11671-8

in the Name of Latino Americana Express, 90 Civ. 8154 (MBM), 1992
WL 98840 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 1992), for example, the Government

13

seized two bank accounts controlled by Pedro Lora on the ground
that they were property involved in illegal structuring in
violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324.

Claimants had purchased from

Lora, with Dominican pesos, checks drawn on these accounts as a
way of acquiring U.S. dollars.

The checks, however, had not been

accepted at the time the accounts were seized.

This Court

rejected the claimants’ argument that they had a possessory
interest in the bank accounts on which the checks were drawn.
“[C]laimants simply held promises by the drawer, Pedro Lora, to
pay the amount for which the checks were drawn; they did not own
portions of the defendant accounts in the amounts for which the
checks were drawn.

Therefore, claimants are not owners and have

no standing to assert the innocent owner defense.”

Id. at *4.

Accord United States v. Ribadeneira, 920 F. Supp. 553, 554-55
(S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Sand, J.) aff’d (per curiam), 105 F.3d 833 (2d
Cir. 1997) (as holders of checks drawn on seized account, as
opposed to security interests, claimants were unable to assert
rights to a particular asset or specified funds and hence lacked
standing).
For these reasons, Claimants’ claim should be stricken.
II.

The COUNTER CLAIM SHOULD BE DISMISSED
A.

Relevant Law
Because Claimants lack standing to file a claim in this

matter, they are not a party to this action and their counter

14

claim should also be dismissed.

Additionally, and most

basically, Claimants’ “counter claim” fundamentally misapprehends
the nature of this in rem proceeding.

It is the property of the

Poker Companies, among others, that constitutes the defendantsin-rem in this action.

Claimants are not defendants.3

“A

counterclaim is an action brought by a defendant against the
plaintiff. Whatever the claimants’ pleading is, it is not
properly a counterclaim.”

United States v. $10,000.00 in U.S.

Funds, 863 F. Supp. 812, 816 (S.D. Ill. 1994); see also United
States v. “Lady with a Parrot” by Nahl, 92-C-6427, 1992 WL
293287, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 1992) (striking counter claim
in forfeiture action as improper).
Finally, the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars
Claimants’ “counter claim.”

As this court explained in United

States v. All Right, Title and Interest in the Real Property and
Buildings Known as 228 Blair Avenue, Bronx, New York:
It is well established that the United States
Government has sovereign immunity and,
consequently, can be sued only to the extent
it consents to be sued, and only in the
manner established by law. Thus,
counterclaims against the United States can
be maintained only where the Government has
consented or waived its immunity from suit on
that claim. . . . Initiation of a
forfeiture action does not constitute a

3

While certain persons and entities have been named as in
personam defendants in regard to civil money allegations, to the
best of the Government’s knowledge, the Claimants are not among
them.
15

waiver of sovereign immunity.
821 F. Supp. 893, 899 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (citing United States v.
Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980)).

See also United States v.

Lockheed L-188 Aircraft, 656 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1979) (government
did not waive sovereign immunity in filing an in rem forfeiture
action so the district court’s dismissal of counterclaim asserted
under Tucker Act affirmed); United States v. 8,800 Pounds of
Powdered Egg White, 04 Civ. 76 (RWS), 2007 WL 2955571, at *7
(E.D. Mo. Oct. 5, 2007) (same); $10,000.00 in U.S. Funds, 863 F.
Supp. at 816 (court barred FTCA counter claim, holding “that the
mere fact that the government is the plaintiff and has brought
the forfeiture action does not constitute a waiver of sovereign
immunity and authorize the bringing of a counterclaim”).
Claimants’ citation to the Civil Asset Forfeiture
Reform Act (“CAFRA”) and the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”) also do not provide a valid basis for
Claimants to assert any sort of counter claim.

CAFRA does

provide for attorneys’ fees and interest in cases in which a
claimant is successful.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1).

That

provision, however, does not authorize the filing of a counter
claim against the United States.

See United States v. 662 Boxes

of Ephedrine, 590 F. Supp. 2d 703, 705 (D.N.J. 2008) (dismissing
counter claims for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs “as
superfluous because the CAFRA specifically provides that a

16

prevailing party may recover those expenses by post-judgment
motion”).

Additionally, due to the presence of CAFRA’s fee-

shifting provision, the Second Circuit has explicitly held that
“the EAJA and CAFRA are irreconcilably at odds” and that “CAFRA
is exclusive of all other remedies.”

United States v. Khan, 497

F.3d 204, 211 (2d Cir. 2007).
Finally, neither 18 U.S.C. § 983 nor the Supplemental
Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Rule (G), provide for
counterclaims in civil forfeiture proceedings.
B.

Discussion
Because Claimants lack Article III standing to file a

claim in this matter, they are not validly a party in this action
and their counter claim, along with their Claim, should be
dismissed.

Relatedly, because Claimants are not defendants in

this matter, they lack the ability to file a counter claim.
Finally, Claimants’ counter-claim should also be dismissed on the
basis of sovereign immunity, which has not been waived in this
context.

Neither CAFRA, the EAJA or any other statutory

provision provide Claimants with a legal basis to assert a
counter claim in this matter.

17

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully
requests that the Court enter an order striking the claim and
counter claim of Claimants for lack of standing and also strike
their counter claim as barred by sovereign immunity and
unauthorized by statute.
Dated:

New York, New York
July 9, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By: :

/s/
Sharon Cohen Levin
Jason H. Cowley
Michael D. Lockard
Assistant United States Attorney
[phone]/2479/2193

18