Optional Capital, Inc. v. Das Corporation, 18 F.4th 1032

The U.S. brought consolidated civil forfeiture actions (2004–05) targeting a Credit Suisse account (0251-844548-6) allegedly holding proceeds of fraud; account frozen via MLAT in 2005.
Multiple claimants (including Optional and DAS) litigated claims for years; DAS obtained $12.6 million from the Swiss account in Feb. 2011 after a separate Swiss process and settled with Kim-related parties, initially not informing the U.S. court.
In June 2011 the district court denied Optional’s motions to hold DAS in contempt or to compel turnover, finding prior orders insufficiently specific and noting lack of control over Swiss proceedings; in Nov. 2011 the court dismissed DAS from the forfeiture action.
At a May 2013 bench trial Optional became the sole claimant (after settling with the Kim claimants) and the district court entered judgment adopting Optional’s proposed language awarding Optional “all funds” in the Credit Suisse account “as of August 8, 2005.”
Optional waited five years and in 2018 sought contempt against DAS for not returning the $12.6 million; the district court discharged the order to show cause, holding the 2013 judgment did not require DAS to return the transferred funds.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: the 2013 judgment was ambiguous on whether it reached funds previously transferred to DAS, the record shows the court intended to award only funds remaining and not the $12.6 million, so contempt was properly denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did DAS violate the May 2013 judgment by not returning $12.6M?	Optional: Judgment awarded “all funds…as of Aug 8, 2005,” so it includes the $12.6M and DAS must turn it over.	DAS: Judgment did not address funds already transferred; district court previously declined to order return; DAS was not a party at trial.	No. Judgment did not require turnover; contempt denied.
Can the court consult the record (beyond four corners) to construe the judgment?	Optional: Enforce the judgment’s literal four-corners language.	DAS: Judgment ambiguous; must read in context of record and prior orders.	Record may be considered for ambiguous judgments; here the record shows the award covered only funds then at issue.
Must the judgment be construed to avoid due-process/fraud concerns?	Optional: Literal reading controls, regardless of collateral issues.	DAS: Reading to include transferred funds would raise due-process and potential fraud-on-the-court problems because DAS wasn’t before the court on that issue.	Court construes judgment to avoid such defects and preserve validity; therefore it did not reach the transferred $12.6M.

Ruiz v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 824 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016) (interpretation begins with natural reading; consult the issuing-court record for ambiguous decrees)
In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693 (9th Cir. 1993) (definition and elements of civil contempt)
Labor/Community Strategy Ctr. v. L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 564 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2009) (contumacious violation requires clear-and-convincing proof; substantial-compliance and good-faith defenses)
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1996) (district court abuses discretion when it commits legal error)
Lowenschuss v. Selnick (In re Lowenschuss), 170 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 1999) (interpretation of judgments reviewed de novo)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (federal courts have inherent power to vacate judgments procured by fraud on the court)