United States v. $417,143.48, Four Hundred Seventeen Thousand, One Hundred Forty-Three Dollars and Forty-Eight Cents
682 F. App'x 17
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- In Jan 2011 Spanish authorities arrested Gustavo Julia with ~1,000 kg of cocaine on a private jet he leased.
- After Julia's arrest, his spouse Amelia de Carmen Dominguez transferred about $409,000 from an account used to fund the jet lease into a joint account; the U.S. later seized roughly $417,712.19 from two J.P. Morgan accounts.
- The government filed an in rem forfeiture complaint alleging violations of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A).
- Claimants failed to file timely verified claims under Supplemental Rule G(5); they filed an unverified Notice of Claim months late.
- The government moved to strike the defective claim; Dominguez sought leave to file a verified claim nunc pro tunc and Julia moved to dismiss. The district court struck the claim and denied relief, concluding Claimants lacked statutory standing and Dominguez failed to show excusable neglect. The court entered a forfeiture decree, and Claimants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimants have statutory standing after failing to file timely verified claims | Government: Rule G(5) requires a timely verified claim; failure deprives standing | Claimants: late unverified claim should be accepted; challenge complaint sufficiency | Held: No standing; defective/unverified late claim properly struck. |
| Whether Julia may move to dismiss the forfeiture without having standing | Government: Only a claimant with standing may move to dismiss under Rule G(8) | Julia: may challenge sufficiency regardless of procedural defects | Held: Julia lacked standing; motion to dismiss properly denied. |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying Dominguez leave to file a verified claim nunc pro tunc | Government: no excusable neglect; delay and failure to answer fatal | Dominguez: residence abroad, no suggestion of bad faith, should be excused | Held: No abuse of discretion; court reasonably declined to excuse noncompliance. |
| Whether any other arguments (e.g., Complaint defects) can be considered despite procedural default | Government: procedural default bars merits review | Claimants: Complaint is deficient and merits review warranted | Held: Procedural default prevents merits review; sufficiency arguments not considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., 166 F.3d 522 (2d Cir.) (standing requires timely claim)
- United States v. Eng, 951 F.2d 461 (2d Cir.) (verified claim essential to standing)
- Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996) (abrogation on other grounds noted)
- United States v. Amiel, 995 F.2d 367 (2d Cir.) (district court discretion to excuse procedural defaults in appropriate cases)
- United States v. $487,825.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 662 (3d Cir.) (Rule G’s purpose: prompt claimant response)
- Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355 (2d Cir.) (importance of enforcing time limits)
- United States v. Vazquez-Alvarez, 760 F.3d 193 (2d Cir.) (governing Rule G and civil forfeiture practice)