United States v. Chandran
4:22-cr-03077
| D. Neb. | May 2, 2025Background
- Neil Chandran was indicted for alleged wire fraud and money laundering, with seizure warrants issued for various properties connected to the case—some outside Nebraska and belonging to companies linked to Chandran.
- The government, with Chandran’s consent (and that of co-defendant Lee), obtained court orders to sell certain seized assets; the proceeds (“substitute res”) were to be held pending the outcome of the case.
- Chandran later filed a motion seeking return of the seized assets, arguing the seizures were unlawful and contending he required the assets to retain private counsel.
- The Magistrate Judge denied the request for the return of sold assets, holding Chandran had waived arguments regarding pretrial restraint by consenting to the sales, but required the government to seek an order to maintain possession of remaining seized property.
- The government complied by filing a motion to maintain custody of the seized assets under 21 U.S.C. § 853.
- Chandran objected, insisting his consent to sales did not waive his right to challenge pretrial restraint or use proceeds for legal fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chandran waived right to object to restraint of assets sold with consent | Consent to sales equates to waiver of further challenge | Consent to sale did not waive right to challenge restraint or access proceeds for counsel | Consent was clear; no further challenge allowed |
| Validity of out-of-district seizure warrants | Warrants valid under federal statutes | Seizures outside Nebraska invalid | Warrants were valid federally |
| Applicable standard for court review | Clearly erroneous or contrary-to-law standard applies | Appeals standard (appellate review of forfeiture) applies | District standard is correct |
| Need for evidentiary hearing re: ambiguous court orders | No ambiguity—orders were clear; no hearing needed | Language in orders ambiguous, warrants hearing | No ambiguity; hearing denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016) (pretrial restraint of untainted assets needed for counsel violates Sixth Amendment, but restraint of tainted assets does not)
- Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999) (defines clearly erroneous standard for reviewing magistrate judge decisions)