United States v. Claude Louis Duboc
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19103
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Duboc appeals the district court’s amendment of the 1999 criminal forfeiture order to include his Thailand condominiums.
- The 1999 order required forfeiture of $100 million in proceeds and a list of assets; the district court retained jurisdiction to amend for newly discovered property.
- In 2000, Thailand restrained the condos under an MLAT request; the government later moved to amend in 2011.
- The government sought to treat the condos as proceeds, substitute assets, or both, under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1), (d), and (p); collateral estoppel was invoked.
- Duboc argued the condos were not purchased with illicit proceeds, that the amendment was time-barred by statute of limitations or laches, that due process was violated by delay, and that the MLAT invalidates the amendment; the court affirmed the amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment to the forfeiture order was proper under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) and (d). | Duboc contends condos were not proceeds of crimes; collateral estoppel should bar relitigation. | United States argues the condos are presumptively forfeit-able under § 853(d) and qualify as substitutes/proceeds. | Yes; the condos are subject to forfeiture under § 853(a)(1) and (d). |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars relitigating income and wealth issues from the prior sentencing. | Duboc argues income history can be relitigated. | Government contends prior findings remain controlling. | Yes; collateral estoppel applies to preclude relitigation of the income issue. |
| Whether the motion to amend was barred by statute of limitations or laches. | Duboc asserts time-bar and delay violated due process. | Government argues § 1621 does not apply to criminal forfeiture and laches does not apply here; Rule 32.2(e)(1) allows amendment at any time. | No; limitations do not apply and laches does not apply; amendment allowed. |
| Whether MLAT defense invalidates the amended order. | Duboc claims MLAT prevents enforcement against condos. | MLAT allows mutual assistance in forfeiture; private parties cannot rely on MLAT to block forfeiture. | No; MLAT does not create private rights and does not defeat the forfeiture. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2005) (collateral estoppel in criminal forfeiture context)
- United States v. All Funds in Account Nos. 747.034/278, 747.009/278, & 747.714/278 in Banco Espanol de Credito, Spain, 295 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (absence of property tolling; civil forfeiture context cited for absence rule)
- United States v. Carrell, 252 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2001) (inapplicability of certain civil limitations to criminal forfeiture)
- United States v. Bissell, 866 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1989) (government not subject to laches in enforcing forfeiture rights)