United States v. Alquzah
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31150
W.D.N.C.2015Background
- Defendant was convicted of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and money laundering; a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture named multiple bank accounts and real properties.
- Petitioner is the defendant’s wife; she filed a third-party petition claiming interests in several assets listed in the Preliminary Order.
- Petitioner’s name appears on only one seized asset (a joint bank account FFC 8587); she signed a mortgage for one Kentucky property (1479 Boardwalk).
- Government moved for partial dismissal/summary judgment as to all contested assets except Petitioner’s partial interests in two Kentucky real properties (Boardwalk and Whitfield Drive) and one joint bank account.
- Court found undisputed facts show Petitioner lacks legal title or traced funds for most assets; Court recognized Petitioner’s statutory inchoate dower interests in the two Kentucky properties and her joint ownership of FFC 8587.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to contest forfeiture | Petitioner claims marital/spousal ownership and possessory rights in seized assets | Most assets titled to others; Petitioner lacks legal ownership or tracing for funds | Petitioner lacks standing for all assets except two Kentucky properties (dower) and joint FFC 8587 account |
| Applicability of §853(n)(6)(A) (superior title at time of crime) | Petitioner asserts marital rights give superior interest | Petitioner acquired no superior vested title before forfeiture vested except Kentucky dower | §853(n)(6)(A) satisfied only for Kentucky properties where dower vested prior to forfeiture vesting |
| Applicability of §853(n)(6)(B) (bona fide purchaser for value) | Petitioner argues she is an innocent owner / purchaser | Petitioner made no arm’s-length purchase, no consideration traceable; many payments made after indictment | Petitioner is not a bona fide purchaser; innocence alone is not a defense under criminal forfeiture statute |
| Effect of state marital property/dower law | Petitioner urges equitable marital rights to prevent forfeiture | Government cites Fourth Circuit precedent applying state law and holding unvested marital claims insufficient | Court follows state-law analysis: South Carolina marital claims fail (Schifferli); Kentucky dower recognized as a vested legal interest for standing and §853(n)(6)(A) defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- United States v. Timley, 507 F.3d 1125 (standing under §853(n))
- United States v. Oregon, 671 F.3d 484 (look to state law for third‑party interests)
- United States v. Schifferli, 895 F.2d 987 (spouse’s unvested marital rights insufficient to establish standing under forfeiture statutes)
- United States v. Hooper, 229 F.3d 818 (§853(n)(6)(A) vs (B) and bona fide purchaser framework)
- United States v. Fleet, 498 F.3d 1225 (division/realization of jointly held property in criminal forfeiture)
- United States v. Totaro, 345 F.3d 989 (determining defendant’s portion of jointly held property for forfeiture)