| FEAR's Brief Bank II Motions, pleadings and briefs |
| | Brief Bank II: indexed by issue |
| | ******************************************************************************************* |
| | Comingling | [ | 65 | ] |
| | MEMORANDUM OF DECISION |
| | Order finding that defendant Flash II, seized and sold by the US government is not subject to forfeiture. |
| | Government failed to carry its burden of proof under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). |
| | "Accordingly the sloop was not forfeitable. Because the sloop was not forfeitable, the government had no |
| | interest in the sloop and therefore no right to dispose of the sloop." case "is analogous to cases |
| | concerning withdrawals from bank accounts that commingle drug proceeds |
| | and clean money" as in the Second Circuit case Untied States v. Banco Cafetero Panama; supported by United |
| | States v. Voigt,"4 a case where the government bore the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the |
| | evidence that jewelry was "traceable to" the proceeds of money laundering activity: "While we can envision a |
| | situation where $500,000 is added to an account containing only $500, such that one might argue that the |
| | probability of seizing "tainted" funds is far greater than the government's preponderance burden (50.1%), such |
| | an approach is ultimately unworkable. … [T]he presence of one illegal dollar in an account does not taint the |
| | rest–as if the dollar obtained from money laundering activity were like a drop of ink falling into a glass of water." |
| | by |
| | U.S. | v. | John Doe | D.Mass. | 05-10192 | ( | 2001 | ) |
| | browser view: | BrowserView | filed: | 10/1/2007 |
| | Word Perfect version: | WordPerfect |
| | MS_Word version: | MSWord |
| | RTF version: | RichTextFormat | [ | KennedySailboa | ] |
| | PDF version: | [ | 592 | ] |
| | . |
| | Monday, October 08, 2007 | Page 1 of 2 |
Page 1. (c) 2006 Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation