Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-mc-00076/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-mc-00076-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

1

 Consent Judgment of Forfeiture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $47,495.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

1:14-MC-00076-LJO

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF 

FORFEITURE

Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds:On 

or about May 27, 2014, the Drug Enforcement Administration (hereafter 

“DEA”) seized Approximately $47,495.00 in U.S. Currency (the “Defendant Currency”).

2. The DEA commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings, sending direct 

notice to all known potential claimants and publishing notice to all others. On or about 

August 26, 2014, the DEA received a claim from Dady Lu Thongthipvoravong

(“Thongthipvoravong” or “Potential Claimant”) asserting an ownership interest in the 

Defendant Currency.

3. The United States represents that it could show at a forfeiture trial that:

a. On May 27, 2014, DEA agents received information regarding 

suspicious travel by Thongthipvoravong, who was traveling from Los Angeles, California to 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

JEFFREY A. SPIVAK

Assistant U. S. Attorney

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, CA 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Attorneys for the United States

Case 1:14-mc-00076-LJO Document 8 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 5
2

 Consent Judgment of Forfeiture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Fresno, California via American Airlines flight 2610 on the same date. DEA agents were 

also advised that Thongthipvoravong’s travel had originated in Dallas, Texas and that the 

round trip air ticket has been purchased on the day prior (May 26, 2014) with a return date 

of May 29, 2014.

b. After arrival of flight 2610, DEA agents and additional law enforcement 

made contact with Thongthipvoravong as he exited the plane. Thongthipvoravong was 

subsequently contacted by two law enforcement officers. When asked about the nature of 

his travel to Fresno, Thongthipvoravong advised that he was originally from Fresno and 

was visiting family. When asked for the names of the family members he was visiting 

Thongthipvoravong was reluctant to provide that information. Thongthipvoravong then 

stated that he would be visiting friends, but again was reluctant to provide the names or 

any additional information with regard to the individuals he planned to visit.

c. Upon further questioning, Thongthipvoravong advised that there was 

nothing of an illegal nature in his bag or on his person. When initially asked if he was 

carrying any large sums of currency, Thongthipvoravong did not respond. When asked a 

second time if he was carrying any large sums of currency, Thongthipvoravong stated that 

he was carrying “some” money and gave consent for law enforcement to search his bag. 

d. Upon searching the bag, law enforcement agents located a blue zipper 

pouch with the word “Chase” written on it and another black zippered “binder” type 

container. When asked what was in the blue pouch, Thongthipvoravong, stated that it was 

his money. After opening the blue pouch law enforcement agents observed an unknown 

amount of rubber banded U.S. currency inside. Thongthipvoravong stated that this was all 

the U.S. currency he had in his possession. While Thongthipvoravong made this 

statement, law enforcement observed the black zippered “binder” type container to be open 

and to contain a large unknown amount of currency which was also bundled with rubber 

bands. 

e. At this point, one of the law enforcement agents removed the black 

“binder” type container, containing a large amount of U.S. currency and showed it to 

Case 1:14-mc-00076-LJO Document 8 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 5
3

 Consent Judgment of Forfeiture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Thongthipvoravong. When asked about his statement wherein Thongthipvoravong stated 

that the money in the blue “Chase” pouch was all he had in his possession, he did not 

respond. 

f. When asked why he was carrying such a large amount of currency, 

Thongthipvoravong stated that he did not believe in banks. Thongthipvoravong advised 

that he was a professional gambler and that he had W-2s from casinos which proved that 

the money was his. At this point law enforcement explained to Thongthipvoravong that he 

was free to leave but that his bag and currency would being detained while a narcotic 

detecting canine was called to conduct a sniff test on the currency. Thongthipvoravong 

advised that he desired to stay with his bag and money; and again stated that he was a 

professional gambler and had W-2s to prove this was how he had obtained the money. 

Thongthipvoravong susbsequently produced the W-2s as well as other financial-type 

documents which law enforcement copied for their records.

g. During contact with Thongthipvoravong, law enforcement observed his cell 

phone ringing repeatedly. When asked if someone was picking him up in Fresno, 

Thongthipvoravong refused to respond.

h. Over the course of the interview Thongthipvoravong responded to 

questions regarding his travel plans, stating that he was here in Fresno to see some people, 

to gamble at Table Mountain Casino, and that he planned to go to Las Vegas. When asked 

where he intended to stay, Thongthipvoravong stated that he would be staying at hotels 

and with friends; however, he was unable to provide the names of these hotels or the 

names of his friends. When asked how he intended to get to Las Vegas and then back to 

Fresno in time to make his return flight, Thongthipvoravong indicated that he might not 

utilize the return flight. 

i. Thongthipvoravong was very reluctant to answer questions other than how 

he had obtained the money in his possession. When asked if he had ever been arrested or if 

he had ever been on probation, Thongthipvoravong remained silent refusing to answer 

either of these questions. 

Case 1:14-mc-00076-LJO Document 8 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 5
4

 Consent Judgment of Forfeiture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

j. At approximately 10:17 p.m., a controlled sniff of the currency was 

conducted wherein narcotic detecting canine “Tag” made a positive alert on the money for 

the presence of narcotics. 

k. In 2008 Dady Lu Thongthipvoravong pleaded guilty to transportation of 

marijuana and drug paraphernalia in Yavapai County Arizona, Superior Court.

4. As a result of the foregoing, the United States believes it could show at a 

forfeiture trial that the Defendant Currency is forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 

21 U.S.C § 881(a)(6). 

5. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained above,

Thongthipvoravong specifically denying the same and for the purpose of reaching an 

amicable resolution and compromise of this matter, Thongthipvoravong agrees that an 

adequate factual basis exists to support forfeiture of the Defendant Currency. 

Thongthipvoravong hereby acknowledges that he is the sole owner of the Defendant 

Currency and that no other person or entity has any legitimate claim of interest therein. 

Should any person or entity institute any kind of claim or action against the government 

with regard to its forfeiture of the Defendant Currency, Thongthipvoravong shall hold 

harmless and indemnify the United States, as set forth below.

6. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 

1355, as this is the judicial district in which acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture 

occurred.

7. This Court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395, as this is the judicial 

district in which the Defendant Currency was seized.

8. The parties herein desire to settle this matter pursuant to the terms of a duly 

executed Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.

Based upon the above findings, and the files and records of the Court, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

9. The Court adopts the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture entered 

into by and between the parties.

Case 1:14-mc-00076-LJO Document 8 Filed 07/20/15 Page 4 of 5
5

 Consent Judgment of Forfeiture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

10. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, $27,495.00 of the 

Approximately $47,495.00 in U.S. Currency, together with any interest that may have 

accrued on the total amount seized, shall be forfeited to the United States pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), to be disposed of according to law.

11. Upon entry of the Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, but not later than 60 

days after the Court issues the Consent Judgment of Forfeiture or 60 days after Potential 

Claimant has provided the necessary electronic funds transfer paperwork—whichever is 

later, $20,000.00 of the Approximately $47,495.00 in U.S. Currency shall be returned to 

Thongthipvoravong through his attorney Angel Mata.

12. The United States of America and its servants, agents, and employees and 

all other public entities, their servants, agents, and employees, are released from any and 

all liability arising out of or in any way connected with the seizure or forfeiture of the 

Defendant Currency. This is a full and final release applying to all unknown and 

unanticipated injuries, and/or damages arising out of said seizure or forfeiture, as well as 

to those now known or disclosed. Thongthipvoravong waived the provisions of California 

Civil Code § 1542.

13. No portion of the stipulated settlement, including statements or admissions 

made therein, shall be admissible in any criminal action pursuant to Rules 408 and 

410(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

14. All parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. 

15. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture filed herein, 

the Court enters a Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465, that there 

was reasonable cause for the seizure of the above-described defendant currency.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-mc-00076-LJO Document 8 Filed 07/20/15 Page 5 of 5