United States v. $829,422.42, Currency, U.S.

Second Circuit

United States v. $829,422.42, Currency, U.S.

561 F. App'x 100

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2545-cv

StatusPublished

This text of 561 F. App'x 100 (United States v. $829,422.42, Currency, U.S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. $829,422.42, Currency, U.S., 561 F. App'x 100 (2d Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

The United States brings this civil forfeiture action against approximately $829,000 seized from a Citibank account held by Claimant Western Liability Management (“WLM”). We find that WLM has no standing to challenge the government’s forfeiture action and dismiss the appeal.

In order to have standing to challenge the forfeiture of property, one must be more than a mere “straw owner[]” who holds title for some unknown person. United States v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., 166 F.3d 522, 527 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). “There must be ... some indicia of reliability or substance to [claims of ownership in order to] reduce the likelihood of a false or frivolous claim.” Mercado v. U.S. Customs Serv., 873 F.2d 641, 645 (2d Cir.1989).

Here, WLM cannot show that it is anything more than a shell through which the funds were to pass. WLM admits that its business consisted of nothing more than receiving and retransmitting money among entities that were known to WLM only as a name and a bank account number. Indeed, even if WLM had a legitimate ownership interest in some of the funds in its account, it has not shown such an interest in the funds at issue here. WLM denies having any relationship with the entities that wired the funds. Accordingly, WLM was not injured by the forfeiture of the funds and its appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

The United States brings this civil forfeiture action against approximately $829,000 seized from a Citibank account held by Claimant Western Liability Management (“WLM”). We find that WLM has no standing to challenge the government’s forfeiture action and dismiss the appeal.

In order to have standing to challenge the forfeiture of property, one must be more than a mere “straw owner[]” who holds title for some unknown person. United States v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., 166 F.3d 522, 527 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). “There must be ... some indicia of reliability or substance to [claims of ownership in order to] reduce the likelihood of a false or frivolous claim.” Mercado v. U.S. Customs Serv., 873 F.2d 641, 645 (2d Cir.1989).

Here, WLM cannot show that it is anything more than a shell through which the funds were to pass. WLM admits that its business consisted of nothing more than receiving and retransmitting money among entities that were known to WLM only as a name and a bank account number. Indeed, even if WLM had a legitimate ownership interest in some of the funds in its account, it has not shown such an interest in the funds at issue here. WLM denies having any relationship with the entities that wired the funds. Accordingly, WLM was not injured by the forfeiture of the funds and its appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 F. App'x 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-82942242-currency-us-ca2-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack