United States v. Any & all Funds on Deposit in Account No. XXXXX-XXXXXXXX at HSBC Bank PLC, 55 Corp. Street, Coventry, United Kingdom
87 F. Supp. 3d 163
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- The government filed a civil asset forfeiture action against funds in seven bank accounts held in the name of Jittisopa Siriwan, daughter of former Thai tourism minister Juthamas Siriwan, alleging they are proceeds of a bribery scheme.
- The Greens (U.S. citizens) were convicted for bribing the minister; the Siriwans were indicted in the Central District of California and extradition was sought.
- Jittisopa, a Thai national who has never lived in the U.S., filed a timely claim to the accounts and an answer; the government moved to strike her claim as a nominal/straw owner and alternatively argued she is a fugitive subject to disentitlement.
- The government conceded Jittisopa withdrew funds for her personal use from at least one account.
- The government argued fugitive disentitlement because she has not entered the U.S. to face criminal charges; Jittisopa contested that she has not evaded prosecution and has legally contested extradition and sought a special appearance.
- The court found Jittisopa has standing based on title plus personal use, rejected application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine on the record, and granted a 180-day stay of the forfeiture under 28 U.S.C. § 981(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to contest forfeiture | Jittisopa (claimant) is the titled owner and has an economic interest; withdrawals show control. | Government: she is a mere nominal/straw owner; withdrawals may have been with mother’s permission and lack indicia of control. | Court: Found colorable interest and standing based on title and personal use. |
| Application of fugitive disentitlement (28 U.S.C. § 2466) | Jittisopa: has not evaded prosecution; she lawfully challenged extradition and made a special appearance. | Government: she declines to enter/reenter U.S. to avoid prosecution; filings show avoidance. | Court: Doctrine does not apply—mere non-entry or challenging extradition insufficient; Central District already rejected disentitlement. |
| Whether continuation burdens Fifth Amendment rights (stay under § 981(g)) | Jittisopa: civil proceeding would burden right against self-incrimination in related criminal case. | Government: opposes stay (but does not dispute relatedness). | Court: § 981(g) requirements met (related case, standing, burden exists); stay granted. |
| Discovery to test standing | Jittisopa: standing established; discovery unnecessary. | Government: requests jurisdictional discovery (deposition) to probe nominal ownership. | Court: denied discovery—claimant met low threshold for standing at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., 166 F.3d 522 (2d Cir. 1999) (legal title and indicia of control support standing)
- United States v. $38,570 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d 1108 (5th Cir. 1992) (showing possession, control, title, or financial stake establishes a colorable interest)
- United States v. $81,000, 189 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999) (withdrawals, possession of statements/checkbook establish control for standing)
- Contents of Accounts Nos. at Merrill Lynch, 971 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1992) (mere corporate title without indicia of use can be insufficient for standing)
- United States v. $6,976,934.65 Plus Interest, 554 F.3d 123 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (mere notice of an indictment and refusal to enter U.S. insufficient for § 2466 disentitlement; must show intent to avoid prosecution)
- United States v. All Funds on Deposit at Citigroup Smith Barney, 617 F.Supp.2d 103 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (jurisdictional discovery may be ordered when claimant fails to plead sufficient facts to show standing)