Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): subject to forfeiture, without regard to the location of that property. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000). The Williams action, also an in person-am suit, was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to that court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1332 (2000). The Receiver for NHLIC brought suit against persons and entities, not property, seeking recovery of funds believed to have been stolen from NHLIC. The fact that the court in Williams is exercising control over the proceeds from the sale of the Center Mall property does not transform that suit into an in rem proceeding or alter the basis of the court’s jurisdiction. See United States v. $174,206.00 in United States Currency, 320 F.3d 658, 661 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Ill The Government contends that this Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture (B) holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court (C) recognizing criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment (D) recognizing that the hallmark of an in personam forfeiture proceeding is one where the government proceeds directly against the person (E) holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property
Output (English): holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property