United States v. All Assets Held in Account No. XXXXXXXX

Decision Date19 March 2015
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 13–1832 JDB
Citation83 F.Supp.3d 360
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia
PartiesUnited States of America, Plaintiff, v. All Assets Held In Account Number XXXXXXXX, In the Name of Doraville Properties Corp., at Deutsche Bank International, Ltd. in Jersey, Channel Islands, and all Interest, Benefits or Assets Traceable Thereto, et al., Defendants.

Daniel Hocker Claman, Elizabeth Ann Aloi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge

The United States brings this in rem action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), seeking forfeiture of sixteen defendant properties alleged to have been part of “an international conspiracy to launder proceeds of corruption in Nigeria during the military regime of General Sani Abacha.” Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 1. Claimants—all relatives of an individual alleged to have been involved in the conspiracy—have moved to dismiss the government's complaint with respect to four of the defendant properties, which are investment portfolios located in the United Kingdom that allegedly contain assets worth many millions of dollars. Having carefully considered the motion and related papers,1 and for the reasons described below, the Court will deny claimants' motion.

BACKGROUND
I. Procedural History

The United States initiated this forfeiture action on November 18, 2013, by filing a verified complaint for forfeiture in rem against five corporations, seven bank accounts, and four investment portfolios. The government alleges that Nigeria's former de facto President General Sani Abacha, his sons Mohammed Sani Abacha and Ibrahim Sani Abacha, their associate Abubakar Atiku Bagudu, Nigeria's former National Security Advisor Ismaila Gwarzo, Nigeria's former Minister of Finance Chief Anthony Ani, and others “embezzled, misappropriated, defrauded, and extorted hundreds of millions of dollars from the government of Nigeria” and then “transported and laundered the proceeds ... through conduct in and affecting the United States.” Id. ¶¶ 1, 8–15. Defendant investment portfolios are alleged to contain proceeds from these illegal activities.

Eight claimants—all relatives of Abubakar Atiku Bagudu (hereinafter “Bagudu”)—have filed verified claims of interest in the investment portfolios, asserting that they are beneficiaries of the portfolios.2 Three claimants are adults: Ibrahim Bagudu (Bagudu's brother), Aisha Atiku Bagudu (one of Bagudu's wives), and Ibrahim Atiku Bagudu (Bagudu's adult child). The remaining five are minor children of Bagudu and Aisha Atiku Bagudu: M.A.B., I.A.B., F.A.B., M.A.B., and H.A.B. I.A.B. is a United States citizen; the other seven claimants are foreign citizens. All claimants reside in Nigeria and none are implicated in the government's allegations of wrongdoing. Claimants have moved to dismiss the complaint as to the four defendant investment portfolios, but they do not challenge the complaint as to the other twelve defendant properties, with respect to which a default judgment has been entered.

II. Verified Complaint

The following facts are derived from the verified complaint and are assumed to be true for the purposes of deciding claimants' motion to dismiss.

The government alleges that the funds in defendant investment portfolios are traceable to two illegal schemes.3 The first scheme is referred to as the “Security Votes Fraud,” which began when, between January 1994 and June 1998, General Abacha, National Security Advisor Gwarzo, and others “stole more than $2 billion from Nigeria by fraudulently and falsely representing that the funds were to be used for national security purposes.” Id. ¶ 25. The theft of funds was allegedly committed by General Abacha and Gwarzo when they “executed false national security letters [referred to as “security votes letters”] directing the withdrawal of funds from the [Central Bank of Nigeria].” Id. Gwarzo, “at General Abacha's direction,” prepared these security votes letters and addressed them to General Abacha “purporting to request millions of U.S. dollars, British pounds sterling, and Nigerian naira to address unidentified ‘emergencies' that threatened Nigeria's national interests.” Id. ¶ 26. General Abacha “endorsed each letter with his signature” to approve the disbursements. Id. Over sixty such endorsed security votes letters were sent to the Central Bank of Nigeria in Abuja, Nigeria, where the bank disbursed the funds as requested in each letter, “in cash or traveler's checks, or through wire transfers.” Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. Instead of using the funds for national security purposes, “the stolen money was transported out of Nigeria and deposited into accounts controlled by General Abacha's associates, including [his son] Mohammed Abacha and Bagudu.” Id. ¶ 25. The complaint includes three examples of these security votes letters. Id. ¶ 28.

The process of using security votes letters “to take [funds] from the [Central Bank of Nigeria] violated what the [Central Bank of Nigeria] has described as ‘accepted government procedures.’ Id. ¶ 27. “The proper procedure required the Minister of Finance and the Accountant–General to each approve disbursements in accordance with Nigeria's budget.” Id. The security votes letters at issue were not properly approved “and were also not included in Nigeria's budget for the relevant fiscal years.” Id. After General Abacha's death, Nigeria established a Special Investigation Panel, “which found that General Abacha and his coconspirators had used the false security votes letters to steal and defraud more than $2 billion in public funds, including: (1) at least $1.1 billion and £413 million pounds sterling (GBP) in cash; (2) at least $50,456,450 and £3,500,000 GBP in traveler's checks; and (3) at least $386,290,169 through wire transfers.” Id. ¶ 29.

After the funds were disbursed from the Central Bank of Nigeria, bank staff and “other individuals known and unknown to the United States” would deliver the funds to National Security Advisor Gwarzo at his residence. Id. ¶ 31. “Gwarzo and others acting at his direction would [then] repackage the currency in secure bags and ... deliver it to General Abacha at his residence.” Id. “General Abacha, or those acting at his direction, [then] delivered more than $700 million of these funds to [General Abacha's son] Mohammed Abacha in bags or boxes full of cash.” Id. ¶ 32. Mohammed Abacha, in turn, gave that cash to Bagudu, who “arranged for the money to be transferred to accounts controlled by Bagudu and Mohammed Abacha in foreign countries.” Id. ¶ 33. “In order to move the money overseas,” Bagudu deposited the money, which he referred to as his ‘cash swaps,’ in two local Nigerian banks, and then he “and/or Mohammed Abacha instructed those banks to transfer the funds to accounts overseas owned by Mohammed Abacha and Bagudu. Id. ¶ 34. “Transfers included deposits into accounts in the name of [defendant corporations] under the control of Bagudu and Mohammed Abacha. Id. ¶¶ 33–34. [A]t least $137 million” of these funds were “transported into and out of the United States.” Id. ¶ 35. The complaint describes various specific transactions in support of these allegations. Id. ¶ 35(a)(f). And as discussed below, the funds were later pooled with funds from the second scheme and then laundered and transferred to defendant investment portfolios. See id. ¶¶ 52–93.

The second scheme, referred to as the “Debt Buy–Back Fraud,” began in 1996, when Bagudu and others arranged for the Nigerian government, with General Abacha's approval, to repurchase its own debt from Mecosta—a company owned by Bagudu and Mohammed Abacha—at a price significantly higher than what Nigeria would have paid on the open market. Id. ¶¶ 36–44. The background of this scheme is as follows. Nigeria had agreed to pay a Russian company (TPE) in debt instruments in exchange for the construction of a steel plant. Id. ¶ 37. A dispute arose, however, and Nigeria suspended payment and defaulted on the outstanding debt. Id. ¶ 38. Bagudu learned that another company (Parnar) “would be willing to sell the debt to one of Bagudu's companies (in this case, Mecosta).” Id. ¶ 39. Bagudu approached General Abacha's other son Ibrahim Abacha and Nigerian Finance Minister Anthony Ani, who assured Bagudu that if Mecosta bought the debt, Nigeria would buy it from Mecosta. Id. ¶ 40. “To guarantee that Nigeria would purchase the debt, Ani entered into an agreement on behalf of Nigeria to buy the debt from Mecosta on April 14, 1996, more than four months before either Parnar or Mecosta actually acquired the debt.”Id. Bagudu then “orchestrated a series of transactions through which Mecosta received money in escrow from Nigeria, used that money to purchase the debt from Parnar, and sold the debt back to Nigeria at a significant markup.” Id. ¶ 41.

Specifically, Bagudu arranged for TPE to sell approximately 1.6 billion [German Deutschemarks (“DM”) ] of its Nigerian debt instruments to Parnar on or about September 30, 1996, for 350 million DM. That same day, Parnar resold the same debt to Mecosta, raising the price to 486 million DM. Mecosta immediately marked up the price again and sold it back to Nigeria for 972 million DM, which the Nigerian government paid in two installments of 486 million DM.

Id. ¶ 42. General Abacha “personally approved” Nigeria's purchase of the debt, “even though Nigeria would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars by buying the debt on the open market at the price TPE was willing to sell it, which was nearly two-thirds less than Nigeria ultimately paid for the debt.” Id. ¶ 44. Mohammed Abacha and Bagudu, as the owners of Mecosta, yielded a profit of approximately 481 million DM or $282,506,664.” Id. ¶ 43.

Proceeds from the Debt Buy–Back scheme were wired from Nigeria, through New York, to corporate accounts at Goldman Sachs in Zurich, Switzerland controlled by Mohammed Abacha and Bagudu. Id. ¶ 45. Shortly thereafter, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Nnaka v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 27 Febrero 2017
    ...executive's conduct of foreign affairs, the Court will abstain from doing so on act of state grounds. Cf. United States v. All Assets Held , 83 F.Supp.3d 360, 371–72 (D.D.C. 2015) (concluding that the act of state doctrine did not weigh against the exercise of jurisdiction in the asset forf......
  • Medina-Rodríguez v. $3,072,266.59 in U.S. Currency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 9 Julio 2020
    ..."the pleading standard for tracing funds in a civil forfeiture complaint is not exacting." United States v. All Assets Held in Account No. 80020796, 83 F. Supp. 3d 360, 314 (D.D.C. 2015). Accordingly, the verified amended complaint sufficiently places claimants on notice that the E*Trade ac......
  • United States v. Sum of $70,990,605
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 13 Febrero 2017
    ...Dkt. 157 at 21–22. That position finds support in two recent decisions from this Court. In United States v. All Assets Held in Account Number XXXXXXXX , 83 F.Supp.3d 360, 372 (D.D.C. 2015), Judge Bates held that the act of state doctrine did not warrant dismissal of the action "[b]ecause th......
  • United States v. All Assets Held in Account No. XXXXXXXX
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 4 Septiembre 2018
    ...[ECF No. 1] ¶ 1. As alleged and as described more fully in this Court's March 19, 2015 Memorandum Opinion, see United States v. All Assets ("All Assets I"), 83 F.Supp.3d 360, 364–366 (D.D.C. 2015), the defendant assets were "involved in an international conspiracy to launder proceeds of cor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT