State of New Jersey v. Amboy National Bank Account
146 A.3d 188
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Bovery organized sports "survival" pools for ~20 years; players paid $20–$100 entry fees and sometimes "gifts" (typically ~10%).
- In Sept. 2010 the State seized three Amboy National Bank accounts and cash totaling about $846,000 (≈ $722,000 player entry fees; ≈ $124,000 personal funds). Bovery was arrested and later indicted.
- The State filed an in rem civil forfeiture action under N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 et seq., alleging the funds were proceeds or intended for illegal gambling.
- Claimants (Bovery and his wife) conceded he ran pools and accepted monies but argued the pools were not illegal gambling, that player funds required segregation/notice, and that some seized funds were legitimate W-2 income.
- Trial court granted State summary judgment and denied claimants’ motion to segregate players’ money; denial of reconsideration followed. Claimants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bovery's pools constituted illegal gambling | State: Pools met statutory definition of gambling and promotion; funds were proceeds/earmarked for illegal gambling | Bovery: Pools lawful; payments were optional gifts, not bets | Held: Pools were gambling under N.J.S.A. 2C:37-1 and promotion occurred; illegal because not constitutionally authorized |
| Whether seized funds had sufficient nexus to indictable promoting-gambling offense for forfeiture | State: Deposits and Bovery's admissions show funds were entry fees/gifts intended for gambling; promoting gambling met indictable threshold given volume | Bovery: No bets had been placed before season start; he had no personal stake; some seized funds were lawful income | Held: Preponderance satisfied; admitted deposits/longstanding operation established nexus and indictable conduct |
| Whether claimants carried burden to allocate legitimate W-2 income from forfeitable funds | State: Claimants failed to present credible evidence allocating funds; many State facts admitted under Rule 4:46-2(b) | Claimants: W-2s and request for forensic accounting showed some seized funds were lawful income | Held: Burden on claimants to allocate; their submissions were inadequate and admissions defeated their allocation claim |
| Whether State violated N.J.S.A. 2C:64-3 notice requirement by not notifying players whose fees were seized | Claimants: Players (innocent under N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2(c)) had property interest and should have been noticed/segregated | State: Notice required only to persons known to have property interest (account holders); players were not account holders | Held: Notice to account holders (Bovery, wife, father) sufficed; players had no separate claim to notice or segregation in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, LLC, 209 N.J. 35 (2012) (summary judgment standards; view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Seven Thousand Dollars, 136 N.J. 223 (1994) (civil forfeiture principles; burden shifting and requirement of causal nexus for derivative contraband)
- State v. One (1) 1979 Chevrolet Camaro Z-28, 202 N.J. Super. 222 (App. Div. 1985) (fact-specific nexus analysis for forfeiture)
- State v. Sparano, 249 N.J. Super. 411 (App. Div. 1991) (forfeiture may reach property acquired by funds equivalent to illegal proceeds)
- Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546 (1954) (earmarking/segregation of gambling funds and historic treatment of gambling proceeds)
- State v. Tate, 220 N.J. 393 (2015) (method of construing undefined statutory terms by ordinary meaning)