967 F. Supp. 2d 1286
E.D. Mo.2013Background
- Petitioner Reggie Matthews, not a defendant in the underlying case, seeks return of $412,900 in currency seized June 2, 2011.
- The currency was transferred to the FBI four days after seizure by an Arkansas state court order, later set aside for procedural errors.
- Four defendants in the underlying case pled guilty and forfeited any interest in the currency; the Court issued a preliminary forfeiture order in favor of the United States on December 3, 2012.
- Petitioner pursues a Third Party Petition for Return of Property (ancillary proceeding) under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), arguing state-court jurisdiction and possession-based ownership, which the government seeks to dismiss.
- The Court treats the action as in personam criminal forfeiture, not in rem, and analyzes petitioner’s standing and the effect of state orders on federal jurisdiction.
- The government’s motion to dismiss the Third Party Petition is granted and the petition is dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge forfeiture | Matthews contends possession gave ownership under Arkansas law | Possession alone does not establish a right or interest under §853(n)(3) | No standing; failure to explain possession defeats standing |
| Effect of state transfer order on federal in personam jurisdiction | State court transfer creates state priority and in rem jurisdiction | Criminal forfeiture is in personam and federal court has independent jurisdiction | State order irrelevant to federal in personam proceeding |
| Compliance with § 853(n)(3) pleading requirements | Possession and Arkansas presumption show claimant’s interest | §853(n)(3) requires explicit, plausible interest; mere possession insufficient | Petitioner did not plead nature and extent of interest; no standing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) ('criminal forfeiture' is in personam rather than in rem)
- United States v. Totaro, 345 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2003) (in personam nature of RICO forfeitures)
- United States v. Sigillito, 938 F.Supp.2d 877 (E.D. Mo. 2013) (standing requires ownership or possessory interest with explanation)
- United States v. $746,198, 299 F.Supp.2d 923 (S.D. Iowa 2004) (possession plus explanation required for standing)