United States v. White
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6556
8th Cir.2012Background
- Robyn White petitioned for one-half of the proceeds from the sale of ZINK stock forfeited in her ex-husband Robert White's Petters scheme conviction; district court dismissed for lack of standing and merits.
- Robert White founded ZINK Imaging, invested $2.55 million, later worked as a marketing consultant, and transferred ZINK stock to counsel after a raid.
- The ZINK stock was sold for $3 million; proceeds were traced to PCI funds and were subject to criminal forfeiture.
- The district court ordered forfeiture of property traceable to the fraud on September 13, 2010; White filed for divorce on September 20, 2010.
- White amended petitions claiming marital and contractual interests in the stock proceeds; the divorce decree awarding her half the proceeds occurred after petition filings but was not considered by the district court in its ruling.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal, concluding White lacked standing under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and, even if standing were assumed, her contractual/marital claims fail on merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does White have standing to contest the forfeiture of the ZINK stock proceeds? | White asserts a contractual/marital interest and thus standing. | No enforceable contract or valid legal interest; no standing. | No standing under § 853(n); contractual/marital interests insufficient. |
| Does White’s alleged contract create a legally cognizable interest in the forfeited proceeds? | Oral contract for 50% of increased value creates a legal right. | Contract terms too vague/indefinite to be enforceable; not a legal interest. | Contract too vague; fails to confer a legal interest. |
| Does a marital interest under Minnesota law confer standing or override forfeiture? | Divorce decree and marital property law grant standing. | Marital rights do not create a § 853(n) legal interest; no priority for forfeiture. | Marital interest does not establish § 853(n) standing or superior claim. |
| Can White relitigate the nexus between the criminal activity and the forfeited proceeds in an ancillary proceeding? | Ancillary hearing allows relitigation of ownership interests. | ancillary proceeding cannot relitigate nexus; only determine ownership/priority. | Ancillary hearing limited to ownership/priority; nexus cannot be relitigated. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moser, 586 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 2009) (ancillary proceedings address ownership/priority, not relitigating forfeiture facts)
- United States v. Porchay, 533 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2008) (no § 853(n) relief to relitigate forfeiture outcome)
- United States v. Timley, 507 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 2007) (standing—need ownership/possession interest; distinguish legal interest)
- DSI Associates LLC v. United States, 496 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2007) (general creditors lack interest in specific forfeited asset; requires legal interest)
- United States v. Ribadeneira, 105 F.3d 833 (2d Cir. 1997) (legal interest requirement for standing under § 853(n))
- United States v. Cochenour, 441 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2006) (divorce law does not govern a spouse's interest in forfeited property)