United States v. Any and All Funds on Deposit in Account Number 0139874788, at Regions Bank, held in the name of Efans Trading Corporation, 1:13-cv-07983

Background

Efans Trading (run by Yifan Kong) purchased ~2,000 luxury cars in the U.S. (often via brokers) and exported them to Chinese customers; Unicorn Tire (owned by Erxin Zhou) is affiliated and shared resources with Efans.
Brokers (notably Shane Martin) sometimes bought cars in their own names or used third‑party “straw buyers”; purchases were often paid with cashier’s checks drawn on Efans’ bank account.
Manufacturers (Mercedes‑Benz, Jaguar Land Rover, BMW, Ford) maintained dealer no‑export policies and sometimes imposed chargebacks or other penalties on dealers who sold to exporters.
The Government sought forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(d), alleging the vehicles/funds were proceeds of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) or used to facilitate it; Claimants filed opposing claims and invoked good‑faith/absence of intent to harm defenses.
The district court denied the Government’s summary judgment motion, finding genuine disputes about material facts—particularly Claimants’ intent and credibility—that precluded resolving wire‑fraud-based forfeiture as a matter of law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Government showed probable cause and entitlement to summary judgment that Efans obtained/exported cars by wire fraud	Efans used deceptive schemes (straw buyers, false buyer identities) that necessarily harmed dealers and manufacturers, satisfying wire fraud elements	Some purchases were honest; where deception occurred, Claimants lacked intent to cause harm and relied on counsel advice; disputed facts on materiality and credibility	Denied — factual disputes about deceptive conduct, intent to harm, and credibility preclude summary judgment
Whether dealerships were necessarily harmed by straw‑buyer misrepresentations	Deception caused dealers to incur chargebacks, lose future service/parts business, and misplaced benefits	Dealers sometimes colluded or benefited; some dealer policies limited penalties; buyers sometimes indemnified dealers	Denied — record ambiguities (dealer practices, indemnities, possible dealer complicity) create triable issues
Whether manufacturers were necessarily harmed by false information (e.g., recall/bonus impacts)	False buyer data impaired recalls, lost service/parts revenue, and caused manufacturers to pay undeserved dealer bonuses	Manufacturers contracted with dealers (not retail buyers); no direct evidence manufacturers were induced to contract by false retail data; harms speculative	Denied — only the bonus theory plausibly shows necessary harm but record shows Claimants sought legal advice and raises intent questions for jury
Whether Claimants’ consultations with counsel negate fraudulent intent	Government: counsel contacts were superficial and inadequate to negate conscious avoidance	Claimants: consultations (and internet research) show good‑faith belief conduct was lawful	Denied — credibility and sufficiency of legal advice create triable issues on intent

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden and standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine issue for trial standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (court will not rely on metaphysical doubt to deny summary judgment)
United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2015) (distinguishing schemes that do and do not necessarily harm victims)
United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000) (wire fraud: deceptive conduct and intent to harm)
United States v. D'Amato, 39 F.3d 1249 (2d Cir. 1994) (intent may be inferred where deceit necessarily causes harm)
United States v. Shellef, 507 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2007) (deceit must be coupled with contemplated harm)
United States v. Starr, 816 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) (misrepresentation of an essential element creates discrepancy in expected benefits)
United States v. Davis, 648 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2011) (forfeiture burden‑shifting under 19 U.S.C. § 1615)
One Parcel of Property Located at 15 Black Ledge Drive v. United States, 897 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1990) (applying summary judgment rules in forfeiture context)
United States v. Carlo, 507 F.3d 799 (2d Cir. 2007) (conscious avoidance can support knowledge in fraud)
Certain Funds on Deposit in Scudder Tax Free Inv. Account No. 2505103 v. United States, 998 F.2d 129 (2d Cir. 1993) (intent questions unsuitable for summary judgment)