United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112988
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- This is an in rem civil forfeiture action by the United States seeking assets traceable to Lazarenko across Antigua, Guernsey, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, and Switzerland.
- Eurofed Bank Limited (in liquidation) intervenes via its Liquidators, claiming interests in five Eurofed assets, including Antigua funds and overseas assets.
- Antiguan law under the IBC Act and English law principles govern the relationship between Eurofed, its liquidators, and the bank’s assets during liquidation.
- The court previously held standing issues for other claimants; the current question is whether Eurofed, through its Liquidators, has standing to contest the Antigua assets in rem.
- Antiguan restraining orders and subsequent liquidation orders affected how funds were held and in which accounts, but ownership remained with the bank during liquidation under Antiguan law.
- The court distinguishes two asset groups: (i) Antigua assets held in registrar accounts (potentially Lazarenko-related) and (ii) funds overseas in Lithuania and Switzerland, where Eurofed shows no clear ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Eurofed, through its Liquidators, have standing to contest Antigua assets? | Eurofed lacks ownership; liquidators are custodians only. | Eurofed has colorable ownership via liquidation regime and title retention. | Eurofed has standing for Antigua assets. |
| Does Eurofed have standing to contest assets located in Lithuania and Switzerland? | No standing; overseas funds are not connected to Eurofed ownership. | Liquidators’ standing extends only to Antiguan assets; overseas funds lack colorable ownership. | Eurofed lacks standing for Lithuania and Switzerland assets. |
| May Eurofed’s Liquidators appear in court on Eurofed’s behalf in this forfeiture action? | Liquidators are distinct from Eurofed and may not represent it. | Liquidators act as agents/trustees for Eurofed and may appear on the bank’s behalf. | Liquidators may appear on behalf of Eurofed to contest the forfeiture. |
| Are procedural interrogatory responses a basis to dismiss Eurofed's claim? | Inadequate responses justify dismissal under Rule G(8)(c). | Interrogatories show some deficiencies but do not warrant dismissal at this stage. | Procedural deficiencies do not compel dismissal; standing analysis proceeds. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (standing requires colorable ownership with evidence.)
- United States v. One Lincoln Navigator, 328 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2003) (ownership and standing thresholds for forfeiture.)
- United States v. $148,840 in U.S. Currency, 521 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2008) (ownership and standing evidence standards at summary judgment.)
- United States v. 5 S 351 Tuthill Rd., 233 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2000) (owner status and standing framework in forfeiture.)
- United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., 46 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (liquidators and standing in forfeiture contexts; bank-related interests.)