U.S. v. $500,000.00 in U.S. Currency
Decision Date | 16 December 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 08-20579.,08-20579. |
Citation | 591 F.3d 402 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. $500,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, et al., Defendants, v. Principal Khiem Ngo; Saving Call, L.L.C., Claimants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Paula Camille Offenhauser, Asst. U.S.Atty. (argued), Susan Beth Kempner, Houston, TX, for U.S.
David B. Smith (argued), Gerald H. Goldstein, Cynthia Eva Hujar Orr, Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley, San Antonio, TX, for Claimants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
After the United States initiated forfeiture proceedings against funds thought to have been involved in illegal activity, several persons claiming to be the funds' rightful owners objected and filed a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983. Upon the government's motion, the district court dismissed the claim for lack of standing under the statute. The claimants appealed. We reverse and remand.
Appellant Khiem Ngo owns and manages Saving Call, LLC, a California telephone calling card company. Ngo's brother and sister-in-law, Lan Ngo and Ly Le, operate V247, a Texas company that provides Saving Call with distributing, billing and collection services, among others. In 2007, the United States seized $500,900 and $110,000 from the residence of Le, Lan Ngo, Mon Mgo, and Man Tran, and $100,000, $496,100, and $500,000 from safe deposit boxes bearing the names of Le, Mgo, and Tran. During the ensuing administrative forfeiture proceedings, Saving Call asserted a claim to the funds, thereby halting their automatic forfeiture. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(A) (); § 983(a)(3)(A) (). The United States then filed a forfeiture complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, naming the following in-rem defendants: $500,000, $110,000, $100,000, $496,100, and $500,900. After Saving Call filed a verified claim for the funds,1 the United States filed a motion to dismiss Saving Call's claim for lack of standing, and Saving Call filed a response with evidence. The district court granted the United States' motion and denied Saving Call's motion for reconsideration. Saving Call appeals the district court's standing decision.
"This court reviews questions of standing de novo." Nat'l Athletic Trainers' Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 455 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir.2006). To evaluate the prudential standing requirement at issue here, "we must identify what interest the litigant seeks to assert and then decide if that interest is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute." Bonds v. Tandy, 457 F.3d 409, 413-14 (5th Cir.2006). Under Title 18's civil forfeiture scheme, see 18 U.S.C. § 983, only "innocent owner[s]" of seized property hold the right to defend against forfeiture proceedings. § 983(d)(1) (). Section 983(d) defines "owner":
(6) In this subsection, the term "owner"—
(A) means a person with an ownership interest in the specific property sought to be forfeited, including a leasehold, lien, mortgage, recorded security interest, or valid assignment of an ownership interest; and
(B) does not include—
(i) a person with only a general unsecured interest in, or claim against, the property or estate of another;
(ii) a bailee unless the bailor is identified and the bailee shows a colorable legitimate interest in the property seized; or
(iii) a nominee who exercises no dominion or control over the property.
§ 983(d)(6). The question presented to the district court, and now to us, is whether Saving Call's2 pleadings and evidence sufficed to present Saving Call as an "innocent owner." According to the government, Saving Call asserted only the interest of a general creditor—someone to whom V247 simply owes money as a result of past business dealings—that would fall within the § 983(d)(6)(B)(i) provision for "general unsecured interest[s]." Saving Call responds by arguing that it holds a bailment under Texas law that would fall within the § 983(d)(6)(B)(ii) provision for the interest of a "bailee" who shows a "colorable legitimate interest in the property seized."
Our first task to define the asserted ownership interest, which depends upon state law. See United States v. $47,875.00 in U.S. Currency, 746 F.2d 291, 294 (5th Cir.1984). Texas defines a bailment as "(1) the delivery of personal property from one person to another for a specific purpose; (2) acceptance by the transferee of the delivery; (3) an agreement that the purpose will be fulfilled; and (4) an understanding that the property will be returned to the transferor." Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Wilson, 963 S.W.2d 166, 168-69 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (citations omitted); accord DeLaney v. Assured Self Storage, 272 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); Prime Prods., Inc. v. S.S.I. Plastics, Inc., 97 S.W.3d 631, 635 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). Moreover, if properly asserted, a bailor's interest in bailed property constitutes "an ownership interest in the specific property" so long as it falls within the § 983(d)(6)(B)(ii) provision for situations where "the bailor is identified and the bailee shows a colorable legitimate interest in the property seized." See also Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Moore, 560 S.W.2d 129, 130 (Tex.Civ. App.—San Antonio 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (); 8A Tex. Jur.3d Bailments § 16 (West 2009) ( .
Having outlined the contours of the bailment interest that could confer standing, our second task is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Lion Health Serv. Inc. v. Sebelius
-
United States v. $119,030.00 in U.S. Currency
...if that interest is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute.” United States v. $500,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 591 F.3d 402, 404 (5th Cir.2009) (citing Bonds v. Tandy, 457 F.3d 409, 413–14 (5th Cir.2006)). Under the applicable civil forfeiture scheme,......
-
Lion Health Serv. Inc v. Sebelius
...method for determining standing in this case. This Court reviews determinations of standing de novo. See United States v. $500,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 591 F.3d 402, 404 (5th Cir. 2009). In its opinion, the district court stated that Lion suffered an injury "because the amount of its overpa......
-
United States v. 998 Cotton St., 1:11-CV-356
...if that interest is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute." United States v. $500,000.00 in U.S.Currency, 591 F.3d 402, 404 (5th Cir. 2009).8 Under the applicable civil forfeiture scheme, an "innocent owner" holds the right to defend against the c......