United States v. $400, 108.00
| Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-5863 (ARR) (SJB) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. $400, 108.00, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
NOT FOR ELECTRONIC OR PRINT PUBLICATION OPINION & ORDER
On May 13, 2017, the government seized $400, 108 from claimant Sevil N. Shakhmanov, when he failed to report the cash before attempting to board a flight to Istanbul, Turkey, from John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”). Claimant's Response Rule 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 1 17 (“Claimant's Statement”), ECF No. 16. The government now moves for summary judgment, claiming it is entitled to civil forfeiture of the funds under 31 U.S.C § 5317(c)(2)(A) and 31 U.S.C. § 5332(c)(1). Gov't's Mot. Summ. J. 8-21 (“Gov't's Mot.”), ECF No. 15-9. Claimant opposes, arguing that the government has failed to prove no genuine issues of material fact remain as to forfeitability and, in any event, seizing the entire $400, 108 would be grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Claimant's Opp'n 3-14, ECF No. 16-4. For the following reasons, I deny the government's motion.
On May 13, 2017, claimant, Sevil N. Shakhmanov, attempted to board a flight to Istanbul, Turkey, from JFK. Claimant's Statement ¶ 1.[1] He was traveling with two carry-on bags that he packed himself with clothes, shoes, and $400, 108 in cash. Id. ¶¶ 8-9.
Four Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officers attest that before boarding his flight, claimant was advised of the requirement to report any currency he was seeking to transport that exceeded $10, 000. Raio Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 15-3; Cruickshank Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 15-4; Vazquez Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 15-5; Silvestri Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 15-7. They state that claimant was then presented with a Currency and Other Monetary Instruments Report (“CMIR”) Form, which he read, completed, and signed, declaring that he was transporting only $210 in U.S. currency. Raio Decl. ¶ 10; Cruickshank Decl. ¶ 9; Vazquez Decl. ¶ 11; Silvestri Decl. ¶ 10. The government has submitted claimant's signed CMIR Form, on which “$210” is handwritten. Gov't's Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 15-6. The CMIR Form also reads, “if you transport, attempt to transport, or cause to be transported . . . currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10, 000 . . . at one time from the United States to any foreign place . . . you must file a report with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.” Id.
Claimant asserts that the agents did not verbally advise him of the currency reporting requirement on the jet bridge and that he otherwise was unaware of it. Shakhmanov Decl. ¶¶ 7-9, ECF No. 16-3. Rather, claimant submits that the agents asked him “if [he] was carrying any cash and [he] answered, ‘yes.'” Id. ¶ 7. An officer pointed to one of the two carry-on bags and asked how much money he had in there. Id. Claimant responded that he had “two hundred ten thousand” in the bag. Id. Then the officer “pushed a printed paper at [him] and told [him] to write ‘two ten' . . . and sign [his] name.” Id. Claimant disputes that he read and understood the CMIR Form before he signed it. Id. ¶ 11. Claimant submits that “[w]hile this was going on [he] told the agent, more than once, that [he] had another ‘one hundred ninety thousand' dollars in the other bag.” Id. ¶ 7.
A subsequent examination of claimant's carry-on bags revealed “a total of $400, 108 in U.S. currency.”[2] Claimant's Statement ¶ 14. CBP then seized and processed the cash. Id. ¶ 17.
On or about May 17, 2017, a criminal complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York charging claimant with violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316(a)(1)(A), 5316(b), and 5332. Id. ¶ 22. On or about June 9, 2017, however, the criminal complaint was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Id. ¶ 23. The government then filed the instant action for civil forfeiture on October 17, 2019. Compl., ECF No. 1. The government served its motion for summary judgment on May 20, 2021. Gov't's Mot. Claimant served his opposition on June 19, 2021, Claimant's Opp'n, and the government served its reply on July 12, 2021, Gov't's Reply, ECF No. 17. On July 20, 2021, claimant moved for leave to file a sur-reply. Mot. Leave File, ECF No. 18.
A district court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, ” and a fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If the moving party meets its burden, the nonmovant “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (citation omitted). Rather, it “must offer some hard evidence showing that its version of the events is not wholly fanciful.” D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 1998).
In evaluating both parties' submissions, I must “construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant, ” Brod v. Omya, Inc., 653 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted), but “only if there is a ‘genuine' dispute as to those facts, ” Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).
The civil forfeiture provision in 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2)(A) states: “Any property involved in a violation of section . . . 5316 . . . of this title, or any conspiracy to commit any such violation, and any property traceable to any such violation or conspiracy, may be seized and forfeited to the United States in accordance with the procedures governing civil forfeitures in money laundering cases pursuant to section 981(a)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code.” To prevail on a civil forfeiture claim under this provision, the government must prove forfeitability by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1).
“A violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5316 automatically triggers forfeiture under 31 U.S.C. § 5317.” United States v. $248, 430, No. 01-CV-5036 (SJF), 2004 WL 958010, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2004) (citation omitted). Section 5316 provides that “a person or an agent or bailee of the person shall file a report . . . when the person, agent, or bailee knowingly. . . transports, is about to transport, or has transported, monetary instruments of more than $10, 000 at one time . . . from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States.” 31 U.S.C. § 5316(a)(1)(A).
“The Second Circuit has explicitly held that ‘as a matter of statutory construction the government need not prove in a civil forfeiture action under 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c) that the person who allegedly failed to comply with the reporting requirement of § 5316(a) either had actual knowledge of, or intended “willfully” to violate, that requirement.'” United States v. $13, 223.00, No. 12-CV-898 (ARR) (SMG), 2012 WL 1232102, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2012) (quoting United States v. $395, 500, 828 F.2d 930, 934 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also United States v. $145, 139.00, 18 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. $170.000, 903 F.Supp. 373, 376 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). Rather, “[t]he only knowledge requirement is that the person know that he or she is transporting more than $[10], 000 out of the country.” $13, 223.00, 2012 WL 1232102, at *2 (quoting United States v. $122, 043, 792 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1986)).
Here, claimant “do[es] not dispute, for purposes of this summary judgment motion only, that there is no issue of material fact that when [he] attempted to board an international flight, without having declared the $400, 000 he was carrying, he, at that time, had violated the currency reporting requirements of § 5316.” Claimant's Opp'n 3-4. Given that “[a] violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5316 automatically triggers forfeiture under 31 U.S.C. § 5317, ” $248, 430, 2004 WL 958010, at *3 (citation omitted), by conceding such a violation, claimant “has relieved the government” of its burden to prove forfeitability under § 5317, United States v. $132, 245.00, 764 F.3d 1055, 1057 (9th Cir. 2014).
Nevertheless claimant argues that the government has failed to show forfeitability by a preponderance of the evidence because it has not established that he had “knowledge, either actual or constructive, ” of § 5316's reporting requirements. Claimant's Opp'n 4. In doing so, claimant relies on the Second Circuit's due process analysis in United States v. $395, 500, 828 F.2d 930. There, the government sought civil forfeiture under § 5317 of unreported funds seized from a motorist at the U.S.-Canada border who claimed no knowledge of § 5316's currency reporting requirement. Id. at 931. The court rejected the argument that the government must prove actual knowledge of § 5316's reporting requirement to establish forfeitability under § 5317(c) “as a matter of statutory construction.” Id. at 934. However, it suggested that imposing civil forfeiture for inadvertent violations § 5316's reporting requirement could raise serious constitutional questions “when the government has taken no steps whatsoever to provide reasonable notice of the requirement.” Id. at 935. “[U]nder the facts and circumstances of [that] particular case, ” though, it concluded that “the due process requirement could be satisfied . . . by a showing that [the claimant] could be charged with...
To continue reading
Request your trial