UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. All Funds on Deposit at Old Mutual of Bermuda, Ltd. Contract Number CX4011696 in Bermuda

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 24 Memorandum and Recommendations, denying without prejudice 19 Opposed MOTION For Finding of Fugitive Disentitlement, denying without prejudice 22 Motion to Stay (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(amireles, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS.
ALL FUNDS ON DEPOSIT AT OLD
MUTUAL OF BERMUDA LTD.
CONTRACT NUMBER CX4011696 IN
BERMUDA

§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-294
§
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion for Finding of Fugitive
Disentitlement as to Jorge Juan Torres Lopez (“Torres”) (D.E. 19), to which Torres and
his wife, Maria Llaguno Torres (collectively “Claimants”), have responded (D.E. 22). In
their response, Claimants also moved to stay the civil forfeiture proceedings until the
underlying criminal matter is resolved.
On March 6, 2014, Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued her Memorandum
and Recommendation (M&R) (D.E. 24) recommending that both the Government’s
motion for finding of fugitive disentitlement and Claimants’ motion to stay be denied
without prejudice.
Claimants filed their timely objections to the M&R on March 14, 2014 (D.E. 26).
I. Legal Standard
A district court that refers a case to a magistrate judge must review de novo any
portions of the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations on dispositive
matters to which the parties have filed specific, written objections. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
1/4

The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, those portions of the
proposed findings and recommendations. Id. With respect to non-dispositive matters, the
district court must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).
II. The Government’s Motion for Finding of Fugitive Disentitlement
Claimants raise a number of objections to the M&R, despite the fact that they were
successful in defending against the Government’s motion for finding of fugitive
disentitlement as to Claimant Torres.
First, Claimants object to the M&R’s “factual findings” that Torres asked a banker
from JP Chase Morgan if wire transfers could be deleted from the system and that Torres
told the bankers several different stories regarding the source of his income and the funds
that were being deposited into the accounts. The introductory sentence to the paragraph
containing these statements begins with the words: “The Government alleges that . . . .” It
is clear that the statements about which Claimants complain were not “factual findings”
at all, but were merely intended to restate the Government’s allegations against Torres for
background purposes.
Claimants also object to the M&R’s “reference to Mr. Villarreal’s matters pending
in the Western District as having some nexus between those matters and those issues
before this Court with regard to Mr. Torres.” D.E. 26, p.3.

The M&R draws no

connection between this case and the indictment of Javier Villarreal Hernandez
(“Villarreal”) in the Western District of Texas, but only provides this information as

2/4

background, as Villarreal—Torres’ codefendant in Case No. 2:13-cr-1075—is currently
in custody, while Torres is not.
Finally, Claimants object to the lack of factual basis to support the Government’s
prosecution of this matter. This objection is not responsive or relevant to the
Government’s motion for finding of fugitive disentitlement.
Claimants’

objections

to

the

M&R’s

recommendations

regarding

the

Government’s motion for finding of fugitive disentitlement are therefore OVERRULED.
III.

Claimants’ Motion to Stay
Claimants further object to the M&R’s failure to state that the separate forfeiture

action filed in the Southern District of Texas against Villareal’s Bermuda bank account in
Case No. 2:13-cv-33 has been stayed pending resolution of the underlying criminal
matter against Villareal. According to Claimants, in order to avoid conflicting forfeiture
findings and rulings, the Court should also stay the above-captioned forfeiture
proceedings. Claimants further argue that staying these proceedings is the proper course
to take “if the government needs more time to acquire information before proceeding
with its prosecution of the criminal case.” D.E. 22, p. 6.
The Court first notes that the forfeiture proceedings against Villarreal were stayed
upon a joint motion of the Government and Villarreal. Case No. 2:13-cv-33, D.E. 27, 28.
Here, the Government has not joined Claimants’ motion to stay or otherwise indicated
that it “needs more time to acquire information” in the criminal case. Moreover, although
Villarreal and Torres are codefendants in Case No. 2:13-cr-1075, the forfeiture
proceedings against each defendant involve two separate bank accounts at two different
3/4

financial institutions. Claimants fail to explain how the Court’s ruling in the abovecaptioned case could conflict with any findings in Case No. 2:13-cv-33, such that both
judgments could not be enforced. Accordingly, this objection is OVERRULED.
Finally, the Court finds that Claimants fail to set forth any specific facts showing
that they are entitled to stay the case under 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2) beyond merely reciting
the elements of the statute.1
IV. Conclusion
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as
Claimants’ objections and all other relevant documents in the record, the Court
OVERRULES Claimants’ objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Government’s Motion for Finding
of Fugitive Disentitlement as to Torres (D.E. 19) is DENIED without prejudice.
Claimants’ Motion to Stay (D.E. 22) is also DENIED without prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.
ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2014.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

. Upon the motion of a claimant, the court shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding with
respect to that claimant if the court determines that: (A) the claimant is the subject of a related
criminal investigation or case; (B) the claimant has standing to assert a claim in the civil
forfeiture proceeding; and (C) continuation of the forfeiture proceeding will burden the right of
the claimant against self-incrimination in the related investigation or case. 18 U.S.C. §
981(g)(2).
4/4