United States v. $8,440,190.00 in U.S. Currency
719 F.3d 49
1st Cir.2013Background
- Van Bommel and three Colombian crew members aboard a go-fast vessel dumped about $8 million into the Caribbean while fleeing a Coast Guard interdiction; currency recovered by Coast Guard; government filed in rem forfeiture action seeking to forfeit the money as proceeds of drug activity.
- The vessel was stateless; bales recovered contained approximately $8.4 million and included a weapon; Van Bommel and crew were interviewed and claimed to be paid couriers in a smuggling venture.
- Van Bommel signed Notices of Abandonment for the 21 bales and for $10,000 found on his person; notices stated waiver of rights to contest forfeiture; witnesses from ICE/DEA signed as witnesses.
- Van Bommel later pled guilty to a drug-enforcement related charge; a forfeiture complaint was filed November 25, 2009; district court sealed proceedings pending resolution of the criminal case.
- Van Bommel filed verified claims asserting ownership to $8,410,190 (bales plus $10,000 on his person) and moved to dismiss; district court ordered an evidentiary standing hearing which yielded no live testimony due to Van Bommel’s deportation.
- District court granted summary judgment: no standing to challenge the $8,400,190; but stood: Van Bommel had standing to contest the $10,000 on his person; the court entered partial judgment and later final judgment in favor of the United States for the bale money, with dismissal of Van Bommel’s claim for the bale money and reinstatement of the $10,000 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to contest the bale money | Van Bommel shows ownership or colorable interest in the $8,400,190. | Van Bommel abandoned the money by throwing it overboard and signed notices relinquishing claims; lacks standing. | Van Bommel has no constitutional standing to contest forfeiture of the bale money. |
| Standing to contest the $10,000 on Van Bommel’s person | Van Bommel has an ownership interest and can contest its forfeiture. | Waiver of ownership defeats standing; the waiver was voluntary and knowing. | Van Bommel has standing to contest the $10,000 forfeiture. |
| District court jurisdiction over the CBP $4,200,190 amount | Unclear execution of the warrant for that portion could defeat jurisdiction. | Record shows the warrant aimed at the entire currency; lack of explicit reference does not prove non-execution. | Record does not support lack of execution; jurisdiction over the CBP portion was not lacking. |
| Admissibility and effect of Van Bommel's waiver declaration on standing | Waiver evidence can establish standing on the $10,000 claim; even hearsay within the record may be considered at standing stage. | Waiver declaration is inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to prove standing; requires live testimony or admissible evidence. | Van Bommel’s waiver evidence is admissible and sufficient to establish standing for the $10,000; bale-money standing remains lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Antilles Cement Corp. v. Fortuño, 670 F.3d 310 (1st Cir. 2012) (standing requires concrete injury and redressability)
- United States v. Currency, $81,000, 189 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999) (colorable interest supports standing in forfeiture)
- United States v. One-Sixth Share of James J. Bulger in All Present & Future Proceeds of Mass Millions Lottery Ticket No. M2I6233, 326 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2003) (colorable claim suffices at early standing stage)
- United States v. Union Bank for Sav. & Inv. (Jordan), 487 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2007) (district court may conduct extended standing inquiry)
- United States v. All Funds in the Account of Prop. Futures, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (hearsay declarations cannot establish standing)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdictional issues require court to address sua sponte)
- Kenney v. Floyd, 700 F.3d 604 (1st Cir. 2012) (standing reviewed de novo on summary judgment)
- United States v. 1998 BMW 'I' Convertible, 235 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2000) (credibility and demeanor matter at standing stage)
- United States v. All Funds in the Account of Prop. Futures, Inc., 820 F.Supp.2d 1305 (S.D.Fla. 2011) (hearsay evidence cannot be used to prove standing)