United States v. Bonventre
720 F.3d 126
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Bonventre appeals a July 5, 2012 district court denial of a Monsanto hearing in a civil forfeiture action tied to a parallel criminal case.
- Court clarifies threshold requirement for Monsanto or Monsanto-like hearings, requiring a showing of insufficient alternative unrestrained assets to fund counsel.
- Monsanto holds a pre-trial adversarial hearing is required to test probable cause that assets are forfeitable and that defendant committed the conduct.
- Civil in rem forfeiture action uses a different probable cause standard from criminal forfeiture; focus is on asset forfeiture rather than defendant’s guilt.
- District court held Bonventre failed to provide enough information to show lack of unrestrained assets; affidavits were insufficient for threshold showing.
- Result: district court’s denial is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold showing required for Monsanto-like hearing | Bonventre argues no threshold needed before hearing | Bonventre must show assets are insufficient to fund counsel | Threshold showing required |
| Standard of review for threshold issue | De novo review of threshold issue | Abuse-of-discretion standard governs evidentiary matters | De novo review applied to threshold issue |
| Civil in rem vs criminal forfeiture standard at Monsanto-like hearing | Civil action should follow Monsanto standard | Differences in civil vs criminal forfeiture affect standard | Probable cause differs; civil requires showing assets forfeitable, not defendant guilt |
| Burden at Monsanto-like hearing after threshold | Government must show probable cause assets are forfeitable | Narrowed burden once threshold shown | Government must show probable cause assets are forfeitable at hearing |
| Bonventre's threshold showing sufficiency | Affidavits establish need | Showing inadequate | Bonventre failed to show insufficient unrestrained assets; threshold not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Monsanto v. United States, 924 F.2d 1186 (2d Cir. 1991) (establishes necessary pre-trial Monsanto hearing when assets restrained)
- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (protects right to use own funds for counsel but not unlimited Congressional funding)
- Jones v. United States, 160 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 1998) (threshold showing framework adopted by some circuits)
- Farmer v. United States, 274 F.3d 800 (4th Cir. 2001) (threshold showing to challenge restrained funds for counsel)
- United States v. $743,578.82 in U.S. Currency, 286 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 2002) (distinguishes civil in rem forfeiture focus from criminal in personam)