United States v. One 1978 Mack Glider Kit Tractor, Civ. No. N-86-392 (PCD).
Decision Date | 23 February 1987 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. N-86-392 (PCD). |
Citation | 653 F. Supp. 964 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. ONE 1978 MACK GLIDER KIT TRACTOR, One 1967 Mack Tractor, One 1970 Mack Tractor — Joseph Swirsky, Claimant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Timothy C. Moynahan, Moynahan, Ruskin, Mascolo & Mariani, Waterbury, Conn., for claimant Joseph Swirsky.
Leslie C. Ohta, Asst. U.S. Atty., Stanley A. Twardy, Jr., U.S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., for U.S.
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Claimant, Joseph Swirsky, moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint of forfeiture. This action was brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 512(a), which provides, in relevant part:
Claimant argues that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that plaintiff has not alleged that claimant knew of the alleged tampering. Plaintiff argues that claimant must allege lack of knowledge as a defense. Both parties have relied extensively on the legislative history and general principles of statutory construction as this is a case of first impression with regard to the interpretation of this statute.
Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 511 and 512 were passed to deter and punish those who steal cars in order to resell them whole or disassemble them and sell the component parts ("chop shop operations"). Section 511(a) provides that "whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." Clearly, § 511 was intended to be applied only to those who knowingly violated the Act. See Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, House Report No. 98-1087, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm. News 4628, 4649-50. The legislative history, however, does not shed any light on the interpretation of § 512 except to note that that section was considered and passed along with § 511.
"The basic nature of a forfeiture proceeding is in rem, reflecting the legal fiction that the property ... is guilty of facilitating the crime or itself the fruit of the criminal enterprise." United States v. One Mercedes-Benz 380, 604 F.Supp. 1307, 1312 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd without opinion, 762 F.2d 991 (2d Cir.1985). Section 512 is closely analogous to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4). Courts which have interpreted the latter statute uniformly hold that, once the Act has been shown to have been violated, "it is the claimant's burden to prove that the forfeiture does not fall properly within the Act." United States v. One 1976 Buick Skylark, 453 F.Supp. 639, 642 (D.Colo.1978); One Mercedes-Benz 380, 604 F.Supp. at 1311-12 ( ). Cf. United States v. One 1978 Chrysler...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. WHITE 1981 RACE CORVETTE, Civ. No. S 87-747.
...of Title 18 U.S.C. § 512, the statute on which plaintiff has based its cause of action. The case is United States v. One 1978 Mack Glider Kit Tractor, 653 F.Supp. 964 (D.Conn.1987), written by Judge Dorsey. He noted that the case was one of first impression and proceeded to Title 18 U.S.C. ......
-
U.S. v. 1988 Chevrolet Silverado, VIN: 1GCDC14H5JZ157972
...or fire" defense for changes to identification numbers caused by such collisions or fires.10 United States v. One 1978 Mack Glider Kit Tractor, 653 F.Supp. 964, 965 (D.Conn.1987); United States v. White 1981 Race Corvette, 704 F.Supp. 872, 876, 879 (N.D.Ill.1989).11 18 U.S.C. Sec. 512(b) (e......
-
Bates v. City of Gastonia, NC
... ... No. C-C-85-662-P ... United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, ... ...