United States v. 2005 Pilatus Aircraft, Bearing Tail No. N679PE
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17862
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- The government seized a 2005 Pilatus aircraft (N679PE) and initiated a civil forfeiture action. Claimants (Pablo Zarate Juarez, Viza Construction LLC, Premier International Holdings Ltd.) asserted ownership interests.
- Zarate, a Mexican citizen, remained in Mexico and was indicted there on money-laundering conspiracy and bank-fraud charges related to the aircraft seizure.
- The government moved to dismiss Claimants’ civil claims under the fugitive disentitlement statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2466, arguing Zarate evaded U.S. jurisdiction.
- The district court granted the government’s motion, finding Zarate remained outside the U.S. to avoid prosecution and denying Claimants’ request to stay the civil proceedings.
- Claimants appealed, contending the government failed to prove intentional flight, that application of § 2466 violated due process (including treaty concerns), and that the court abused its discretion by dismissing rather than staying the civil case.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the record supported a finding that Zarate deliberately avoided U.S. jurisdiction and that dismissal under § 2466 was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2466 applies because Zarate evaded U.S. jurisdiction | Zarate did not remain abroad to avoid prosecution; government failed to prove intent | Government: totality of circumstances shows deliberate refusal to reenter U.S. to avoid prosecution | Affirmed: record shows Zarate intentionally stayed abroad; § 2466 applies |
| Whether applying fugitive disentitlement violates due process / treaty rights | Claimants: forcing choice between extradition/treaty rights and defending civil claim violates due process (citing Simmons) | Government: no extradition sought; choosing not to present defenses waives right to be heard; no due process violation | Affirmed: no due process violation; treaty/extradition concerns do not bar § 2466 application |
| Whether court abused discretion by dismissing claims instead of staying the forfeiture | Claimants: court should have stayed civil proceeding (statutory stay under 981(g)(2)) | Government: Zarate is a fugitive; Claimants acted inconsistently and failed to participate; dismissal appropriate | Affirmed: denial of stay and dismissal not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether a corporate claimant can be disentitled due to actions of individual claimant | Claimants: implied challenge to applying § 2466 to corporate claims | Government: § 2466(b) permits application when majority shareholder or filing individual meets criteria | Affirmed: corporate claims may be disentitled under § 2466(b) when applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Degen, 517 U.S. 820 (fugitive-disentitlement doctrine overview)
- Ortega–Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (historical application of disentitlement)
- Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (early precedent recognizing disentitlement)
- United States v. $671,160.00 in U.S. Currency, 730 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (totality-of-circumstances support for § 2466 application)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (constitutional-rights waiver context)