United States v. Two General Electric Aircraft Engines
Civil Action No. 2014-2213
| D.D.C. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- The United States filed a verified in rem forfeiture complaint (Dec. 30, 2014) against two GE aircraft engines located in Antalya, Turkey (serial nos. 695244 and 705112).
- Claimant Evans Meridians, Ltd. filed a verified claim, then secretly moved the engines from Turkey to Shanghai in July 2015 and failed to repatriate them or post a $6,000,000 bond as ordered by the court (order required compliance by March 31, 2016).
- The Government moved for an order to show cause; the court held a contempt hearing on Oct. 24, 2016. Evans’ representative (Eugeny Bespalov) attended and admitted noncompliance but produced no financial or asset evidence.
- Evans argued it was impossible to comply and that it was making good-faith efforts by attempting to monetize separate engines in Miami; it presented no documentary proof or steps showing ability to comply.
- The court found Evans failed to demonstrate impossibility or reasonable, diligent efforts to comply, and therefore held Evans in civil contempt.
- The court imposed a coercive sanction of $15,000 per day payable to the Court’s registry until Evans complies with the repatriation order.
Issues
| Issue | United States' Argument | Evans' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans is in civil contempt for violating the Repatriation Order | Evans admitted noncompliance; court order existed requiring repatriation or posting $6M bond | Evans admitted noncompliance but argued impossibility and claimed ongoing efforts | Court: Evans in civil contempt—failed to comply and produced no evidence of inability or bona fide efforts |
| Whether impossibility defense excuses noncompliance | Government: burden on Evans to prove inability to comply; none offered | Evans: claimed impossibility to repatriate or post bond but produced no evidence | Court: impossibility not established; Evans failed its production burden |
| Whether Evans made good-faith, reasonable efforts to comply | Government: Evans’ Miami-engines plan is speculative and not evidence of compliance efforts | Evans: attempting to monetize/sell Miami engines or use them as collateral to satisfy bond | Court: plan speculative, Evans produced no detailed steps or asset info; not good faith |
| Whether daily monetary sanction is appropriate and amount | Government: $15,000/day is coercive and calibrated to likely engine value and risk if sent to Iran | Evans: (no financial disclosures to mitigate sanction) | Court: $15,000/day is an appropriate coercive sanction until compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- SEC v. Bankers Alliance, Corp., 881 F. Supp. 673 (D.D.C. 1995) (standards for civil contempt and burden of proof)
- Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966) (courts’ inherent power to enforce orders via contempt)
- United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947) (civil contempt sanction is coercive/remedial to secure compliance)
- United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 (1983) (respondent may assert inability to comply; burden of production)
- Tinsley v. Mitchell, 804 F.2d 1254 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (impossibility as a defense and consideration of good-faith efforts)
- SEC v. Showalter, 227 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.D.C. 2002) (requirement to show detailed proof of efforts to comply and to "pay what [one] can")
- Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding large per-day sanction where defendant withheld financial information)