In re Funds on Deposit
919 F. Supp. 2d 169
D. Mass.2012Background
- May 31, 2012, court issued warrants to seize funds and property tied to alleged tax evasion and money laundering by Movants and related individuals.
- June 5, 2012, government executed seizures; funds partially returned to cover payroll obligations.
- June 18, 2012, Movants filed Emergency Motion for Return of Property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41.
- August 7–9, 2012, Movants sought further amendments and alleged § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) notice failure.
- Government agreed to a partial return and to await forthcoming forfeiture actions; the court considered the 60-day notice issue.
- Court ultimately denied Movants’ requests to return seized property based on CAFRA notice timing (60-day requirement) and held the government’s interpretation of 60-day notice was correct प्रतिबे.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFRA’s 60-day notice requirement applies here | Movants (Movants) contend 60-day notice applies | Government contends 60-day notice applies only to nonjudicial forfeiture (administrative) and does not apply if no administrative forfeiture is pursued | 60-day notice does not apply here; administrative forfeiture not pursued; motion denied on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martin, 460 F.Supp.2d 669 (D.Md.2006) (CAFRA context and purposes discussed)
- DWB Holding Co. v. United States, 593 F.Supp.2d 1271 (M.D.Fla.2009) (government not permitted to initiate admin forfeiture when over $500,000)
- Chaim v. United States, 692 F.Supp.2d 461 (D.N.J.2010) (notice requirements under CAFRA; nonjudicial vs judicial forfeiture)
- Langbord v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 645 F.Supp.2d 381 (E.D.Pa.2009) (CAFRA notice applicability when admin forfeiture not pursued)
- United States v. 1866.75 Board Feet and 11 Doors and Casings, 587 F.Supp.2d 740 (E.D.Va.2008) (statutory interpretation of § 983(a)(1) applicability)