Cindy Omidi; Asset Management Irrevocable Trusts via Trustee Asiatrust Nevis, Ltd., aka Asiatrust, Ltd.; and Property Care Insurance, Inc., Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
United States of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Argued
and Submitted January 11, 2017 Pasadena, California
Appeal
from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00389-ODW-VBK Otis D.
Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Ryan
D. Kashfian, Esq. (argued) and Robert A. Kashfian, Esq.,
Kashfian & Kashfian LLP, Century City, California, for
Petitioners-Appellants.
Steven
R. Welk (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Chief,
Asset Forfeiture Section; Eileen M. Decker, United States
Attorney; Lawrence S. Middleton, Assistant United States
Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division; Office of the United
States Attorney, Los Angeles, California; for
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Alex Kozinski and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges,
and Mark W. Bennett, [*] District Judge.
SUMMARY[**]
Civil
Forfeiture
The
panel affirmed the district court's order denying
appellants' motion for return of seized funds under the
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(a)(1)(F).
In
connection with an ongoing criminal investigation, the
government seized around $100 million from bank accounts
controlled by appellants as proceeds of criminal activity and
subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981. Appellants
alleged that the government did not provide the notice
required by § 983(a)(1)(A) of CAFRA within 60 days of
the seizure.
The
panel held that § 983(a)(1)(A) did not apply to this
case because the provision limits the applicability of the
60-day notice deadline to "nonjudicial" civil
forfeiture proceedings, and this case involved
judicial forfeiture proceedings. The panel held that
the government could not have pursued nonjudicial forfeiture
proceedings even if it had wanted to because the value of the
personal property exceeded $500, 000. 19 U.S.C. §
1607(a).
OPINION
WATFORD, Circuit Judge.
As part
of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA),
Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202, Congress imposed new
deadlines for the processing of civil forfeiture claims.
Under CAFRA, when the federal government seizes certain types
of property, it must generally provide notice of the seizure
to interested parties as soon as practicable, but in no event
later than 60 days after the seizure occurs. 18 U.S.C. §
983(a)(1)(A). After receiving notice, a person with an
interest in the property may file a claim with the relevant
agency. § 983(a)(2)(A). Upon receiving a claim, the
government must file a civil or criminal forfeiture action
within 90 days, unless a court extends the deadline. §
983(a)(3)(A).
In this
case, in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation,
the government obtained warrants authorizing it to seize
roughly $100 million from bank accounts controlled by the
appellants. The government asserts that the funds are
proceeds of criminal activity and thus subject to forfeiture
under 18 U.S.C. § 981, the primary statute authorizing
forfeiture of property tied to criminal wrongdoing. The
appellants allege that although they learned of the seizure
shortly after it occurred, the government did not provide the
notice required by § 983(a)(1)(A) within 60 days of the
seizure. As a consequence of that failure, they contend, the
government must return the seized funds under §
983(a)(1)(F). That provision provides, as a sanction for
violating subsection (A), that "the Government shall
return the property to [the person from whom it was seized]
without prejudice to the ...