the issue in this appeal is whether or not the summary judgment record below contains evidence to demonstrate that the claimants had a colorable interest in the property the two bank accounts in the funds seize there and we submit that we did fully demonstrate that they had a cultural interest the standard evidence the evidence that that we had a possessory interest in the funds is not only that we had the title the funds we had the title the accounts the only were mr son hugo and mr castro signatories and the only signatories to the accounts but they exercise control they've made the deposits personally there's evidence in the record that there was a debit account debit made well we think that it doesn't and to say not to suggest that well because a summary judgment standard and so a resolution of the of of any contradiction that one might see in the record you have to take all inferences and in favor of the non movements and hear the nonmoving so are my clients but also the contradictions are explained and that's one of the real problems with the government's case and what the company's funds there was nothing like that here that would have solved everything that done signed a document saying which companies funds your honor that story was that  original story and if that was correct why why isn't there a document well there is there's a declaration from mr salis about the ownership of the file i understand that ok but then i want and there is the owner of c s c k c s c is the company that manages and collects all of these funds from all the wealth and stores so what what mr salis said in is that correction is yes these are these fund given to c s e to hold these funds of venture only they have to be returned on demand but c s e can do with them basically what they will and there's an advantage in that the government made a point of saying this is a essentially a contract without any consideration but that's not true picking up all of these funds from the wealth and source all this cash from these walton stores and processing it and counting it is a huge benefit to welton and having those dollars on hand c is a is a currency exchange company having all those dollars on hand is this is a tremendous benefit to see a see the arrangement under the under salsas declaration and also  and on a summary judgment standard i think we can get there what i think the trial court over looked is the original statements from mr simon you go regarding the ownership of the funds or referring to the  wealth and phones had to do with the source of the funds and i think it's important to understand the context here he got a notice that his account had been seized and he was told by the bank that he needed to talk to somebody at the then calls the number that the bank gives him and he's talking to phoenix p d he doesn't know he's talking to phoenix p d he thinks that there's some drug claim involved here has never been him isn't even accused of anything of the sort and so he wants to explain the source of the funds and it's not like he hadn't been involved with moving welton funds before the government's own allegations are that having nothing to do with these two bank accounts w as that in the two years prior on behalf of welton that my client had been involved in transporting funds to us banks in the amount of thirty five million dollars and bunch of different banks those are all solace welt funds those on these funds so it is not at all surprising that when he originally got involved in this case originally had this interaction with law enforcement that he wanted to make it clear that this is these are funds from a legitimate business a well established business thirty five stores across northern mexico that he has a longstanding relationship with and i thought and country picked up from the brief but this this was a real problem the accumulation of these dollars as a real problem that had there was really no other way to do it and in fact my client had been robbed at gunpoint in his own facility at c s e because it's dangerous to have that many please the court my name is monica l c n n i am this is to united states attorney from the district of arizona i want to start with what is critical to the understanding of this case and that is the chronology of how the evidence came into the record before this court after the united states filed the complaint setting forth the basis for forfeiture consistently and throughout the beginning stages of this litigation including the under oath sworn depositions of these two claimants they stated unequivocally that welton was the owner of the funds and more importantly that they themselves did not own these funds they made fake concessions that proved fatal to their case for standing and as litigants the government should be entitled to rely on the sworn deposition statements as this court said in the case of us one hundred thirty three thousand four hundred twenty dollars also an asset forfeiture case preserving the integrity and the truth seeking function of the process is as important in civil as in criminal proceedings the case before your honor's starts and ends with the depositions it is only after i carry with you that the country three statements and the concession that the funds belong to walt is equivocal such that ownership is not established for summary judgment purposes but we're talking about summary judgment and standing by to essentially proceed to trial on the case so how do those contractors statement proof not sufficient to establish a recognizable it interest for standing person who so possession alone has to be accompanied by some explanation in the case of i think it's one hundred ninety one thousand some change  there was an issue of standing and possession accompanied by some explanation like i'm holding it for a friend would be enough to establish a possessory interest right so here you've got this a situation where the account holders are stepping forward saying that i'm the claimant so they've got the possession interest the dominion troll accompanied by some explanation as to how these funds came into their possession it's not it's not a very high standard solution contesting that they did in fact own these fine let me ask you the sort of counsel i get the fact that there are conflicting statements but my recollection is that one of the things that they've never varied from was that they had to account for funds that they belong to well and others and that they would have to pay them back now under and under article three constitutional standing the fact that they are potentially says i'm liable for this it's true it comes from him but he's the one that's involved he's not quoting somebody else for the truth of a matter state and he's saying i am liable i have to respond to this  culture where people do things on a handshake basis are you saying that in every case of such a culture that someone would lose a standing argument here  futures it's a district southern district of florida case and we're very controlling here in that not controlling your honor but instructive in the sense that it in that case the court found that the unsubstantiated legal conclusions whether parroted by a party or by an expert  who's working for world represents well to them says that the arrangement was that they once the money was handed over from well stores they were in the possession and control of c s and the they had to pay them back so why isn't that sufficient to establish  possess or interest at least regardless of whether and i'm not sure that's contradictory of their statement that the funds were owned by weldon f that he is holding the item for a friend he will have standing o there's no documentation and that  two points from your honor that i would make sure that the very first with respect to the solace declaration it the solace declaration explains how the funds came from well to see a see itself and i'll see a c s actually took possession of those funds it says speaks nothing as to how these particular here with respect to the exercise of dominion control the case your honor cited i believe the ninth circuit law says that his mere possession in and of itself with the explanation that i'm holding it for front is insufficient within the ninth possession will not be sufficient however where a claimant a service of possessory interest and provide some explanation of it e g that he is holding them for a friend he will have st quote and your honor the government would submit that there is absolutely no evidence on this record that that they were possessed they held it for a friend and they exercise control of it sufficient to both warrant constitutional standing article three standing a potential standing for example your honour's these claimants the reply brief cites transactions that these claimants conducted there's absolutely no evidence on this record whatsoever that salmon yago conducted any transactions with this account i mean you're talking about some people who claim that they are liable they've stated that clearly they put this money in the fact they have made any use of the money there a lot of people these days who don't have any use for money because you can't earn anything there's a zero negative interest rates in certain places they want the money to be safe nothing wrong with that and i guess i'm my sense of due process is offended by the concept that the united states can se of money hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the idea that these people who say that they're going to be held responsible for this money don't have standing and that it's based on some self serving decoration that's some degree in the eye of the beholder is it not the art of the forfeit ability of this money is not an issue for this court sure issue if they don't have standing it's all over and then well money you know standing itself is paramount yes your honor i know that is they're dead without standing so we're deciding the case based on stanny why shouldn't this issue of whether or not they have made a sufficient argument go back and let a fact finder like a jury make a determination whether or not they have met this burden rather than just have the money disappear into the government coffers to be used i'm sure wisely what would your daughter like me to continue i see my time is expired now i have to answer the question of my colleagues no question i just want to clarify one thing regarding the record  were talking earlier about contradictory statements as i understand the record country three statements go to ownership right there are declarations from the claimants explaining how they got the funds and the fact that they were supposed to eventually pay the funds back were there contradictory statements with regard to that so i'm distinguishing ownership versus possessory interest the united states would would state your honor is that the lack of dominion control along with their supervision of the primary owners of c s c is not in a position to assert a claim on behalf of c s c your position is even though the majority shareholder says i give him permission the fact that he's a fifteen have a if you have some time left thank you i just want to clarify a couple of a couple of points i think the solace decoration is obviously important to this case one thing that the court should be  cognizant of is that solace is not just talking is talking about how the funds get to c s c he's also talking about how the funds need to be repaid he defines some and yeah go with that the mr saul's is not drawing a distinction between c s c and samaniego with respect to san diego's fifteen percent ownership interest that is with the record that's what the record shows but he's also  the manager and general manager of the company and there's not no evidence of fact if you read the expert report it's very clear that he runs the place and the fact that he is that the language of supervision is used i think is a is something that should be resolved the fact finder arguably i'm under the supervision of my law partner you know i'm a part owner of my law firm arguably i'm under his supervision that there's fact issues that need to be resolved i do want to point out that the liability point that the court is his focus on you know that's an admission against interest i don't think it should be