United States of America v. $50,900 in United States Currency

Filing 39

ORDER denying 15 Polat's Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, 17 Grillo's Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, and 35 Claimants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 12/14/2016. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
$50,900 IN UNITED STATES
)
CURRENCY OF IBC BANK CASHIER’S )
CHECK #162263996 IN THE AMOUNT )
OF $250,910 IN UNITED STATES
)
CURRENCY, SEIZED ON MAY 27, 2015, )
FROM INSURED AIRCRAFT TITLE
)
SERVICES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. CIV-16-934-M

ORDER
Before the Court are claimant Benjamin Polat’s (“Polat”) Motion to Dismiss Verified
Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, filed April 5, 2016, and claimant Luis G. Saldana Grillo’s
(“Grillo”) Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, filed April 19, 2016. On
June 3, 2016, the government filed its response, and on July 8, 2016, Polat and Grillo (hereafter
“Claimants”) filed their reply. Also before the Court is Claimants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss
Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, filed October 5, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the
government filed its response.

Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its

determination.
This is an in rem civil forfeiture action. This action was originally filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 11, 2016, the District Court of
Massachusetts transferred this action to this Court. Claimants move this Court to dismiss the
government’s Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem on the following bases: (1) the notice of the

administrative forfeiture process was untimely, and (2) the verified complaint fails to state a claim
as it fails to satisfy the probable cause requirement.
I.

Notice
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of 2000 provides, in pertinent part:
(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clauses (ii) through (v), in any
nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute,
with respect to which the Government is required to send written
notice to interested parties, such notice shall be sent in a manner to
achieve proper notice as soon as practicable, and in no case more
than 60 days after the date of the seizure.
*
*
*
(B) A supervisory official in the headquarters office of the seizing
agency may extend the period for sending notice under subparagraph
(A) for a period not to exceed 30 days (which period may not be
further extended except by a court), if the official determines that the
conditions in subparagraph (D) are present.
*
*
*
(D) The period for sending notice under this paragraph may be
extended only if there is reason to believe that notice may have an
adverse result, including –
(i) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;
(ii) flight from prosecution;
(iii) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
(iv) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
(v) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or
unduly delaying a trial.
*
*
*
(F) If the Government does not send notice of a seizure of property
in accordance with subparagraph (A) to the person from whom the
property was seized, and no extension of time is granted, the
Government shall return the property to that person without prejudice
to the right of the Government to commence a forfeiture proceeding
at a later time. The Government shall not be required to return
contraband or other property that the person from whom the property
was seized may not legally possess.

18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i), (B),(D),(F).

2

It is undisputed that the government did not provide notice to Claimants within sixty (60)
days after the date of the seizure. The Claimants, therefore, contend that the Verified Complaint for
Forfeiture In Rem should be dismissed. In its response, the government asserts that pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(B), Vicki L. Rashid, Forfeiture Counsel of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, granted a thirty-day extension of time to provide notice of the seizure to interested
parties. See Declaration of Vicki L. Rashid at ¶ 4(b), attached as Attachment 1 to United States’
Response to Claimants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem.
Based upon this extension of time, the government contends the verified complaint should not be
dismissed because notice was provided timely. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions,
the Court finds that for purposes of these motions to dismiss, the government has sufficiently shown
that the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem should not be dismissed based upon an untimely
notice.1
II.

Failure to State a Claim
Rule G(2)(f) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset

Forfeiture Actions provides: “The complaint must: . . . (f) state sufficiently detailed facts to support
a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. Supp. Rule G(2)(f). Claimants assert that the verified complaint does not state sufficiently
detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that defendant currency was derived from, or is the
proceeds of illicit activity. Having carefully reviewed the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem
and the Affidavit of Agent John M. Grella, that is incorporated by reference in the verified

1

The Court would note that this finding by the Court does not preclude Claimants, after
discovery is conducted in this case, from re-urging, i.e., through a motion for summary judgment,
that notice was untimely.
3

complaint, the Court finds that the verified complaint states sufficiently detailed facts to support a
reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial. Specifically,
the Court finds that the affidavit of Agent Grella states sufficiently detailed facts to support a
reasonable belief that defendant currency was derived from drug trafficking and/or that the aircraft
was being purchased for the purpose of drug trafficking and/or that defendant currency was involved
in money laundering transactions. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Verified Complaint for
Forfeiture In Rem should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Polat’s Motion to Dismiss Verified

Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem [docket no. 15], Grillo’s Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for
Forfeiture In Rem [docket no. 17], and Claimants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint
for Forfeiture In Rem [docket no. 35].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2016.

4