United States v. Bangiyev
359 F. Supp. 3d 435
E.D. Va.2019Background
- From 2004–2014 Arkadiy and Eduard Bangiyev led a counterfeit-currency RICO conspiracy that produced over $70 million in counterfeit notes.
- Court found Arkadiy knew of at least $20 million in counterfeit proceeds; Eduard knew of $7–20 million; both pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
- Plea agreements contained express waivers of all constitutional and statutory challenges to forfeiture.
- After sentencing, Preliminary and Amended Preliminary Orders of Forfeiture were entered in 2015; no direct appeals of forfeiture were filed.
- Defendants filed § 2255 motions (denied), then sought writs of audita querela/coram nobis to vacate forfeiture in light of Honeycutt v. United States.
- District court denied the petitions, concluding the challenges were untimely, waived, audita querela was unavailable, Honeycutt is not retroactive, and Honeycutt would not change liability given defendants’ leadership roles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of forfeiture challenge | Defendants: may seek relief via audita querela after sentencing | Gov: forfeiture must be challenged on direct appeal within Rule 4(b) | Held: Untimely — forfeiture challenges must be brought on direct appeal and time has run |
| Validity of plea-waiver of forfeiture challenge | Defendants: waiver excludes forfeiture not "in accordance with" plea if Honeycutt limits liability | Gov: waiver was knowing and applies; forfeiture has no statutory maximum | Held: Waiver valid and bars collateral challenge |
| Availability of writ of audita querela | Defendants: Honeycutt is an intervening substantive change and no other remedy exists | Gov: audita querela unavailable; defendants did not preserve issue; no intervening change | Held: Audita querela not available to reopen these forfeitures |
| Retroactivity and application of Honeycutt | Defendants: Honeycutt limits joint-and-several forfeiture liability and should apply | Gov: Honeycutt is not retroactive under Teague; even if it were, leaders remain liable | Held: Honeycutt is not retroactive; even if applied, defendants’ leadership positions would permit joint-and-several liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (interprets "proceeds the person obtained" and limits joint-and-several criminal forfeiture)
- United States v. Chittenden, 896 F.3d 633 (4th Cir. 2018) (applies Honeycutt principles to general forfeiture statute)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity on collateral review)
- United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (All Writs Act preserves common-law writs to fill gaps in postconviction relief)
- United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2012) (criminal forfeitures have no statutory or guideline maximum)
- United States v. Alamoudi, 452 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2006) (same: no statutory maximum on forfeiture)