Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01499/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01499-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

$93,110.00 in U.S. Currency, 

Defendant. 

Elsa Bernal,

 Claimant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-08-1499-PHX-LOA

JUDGMENT AND

ORDER OF FORFEITURE

This Judgment and Order of Forfeiture having been approved as to form and

content by Government’s and Claimant’s counsel, docket # 21, there is pending before the

Court Plaintiff’s uncontested Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P

12(c), filed on September 18, 2008. (docket # 17) The Court has considered the subject

Motion and the following:

1. Verified Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem, filed August 14, 2008;

2. Warrant For Arrest In Rem, filed by the Court on August 21, 2008;

3. The Answer filed by Claimant on August 25, 2008; and

4. The Joint Case Management Report filed by both parties on October 16,

2008, which contains stipulations, incorporated herein, and an explanation as to why

Claimant did not oppose Plaintiff’s pending Motion. 

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 22 Filed 11/20/08 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

Venue and jurisdiction are predicated upon 21 U.S.C. § 881(j), 28 U.S.C. §

1355(b) and § 1395. This District Court has jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of 28

U.S.C. §§ 1345, 1355, and 18 U.S.C. § 981(h) because the Defendant res was found in this

District. Specific statutes critical to the analysis are 31 U.S.C. §5316(a)(2) and §5317(c)(2),

31 U.S.C. §5332(a)(1) and (c), and 18 U.S.C. §983(g). All parties have heretofore consented

to magistrate- judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). (docket # 8 and # 9)

Nature of the case: This is a federal civil forfeiture action seeking the forfeiture

of a res in the amount of approximately $93,110. 

Plaintiff’s claim: The res in this case is currency raised to pay the ransom

demanded from the kidnappers of “Pedro” and are proceeds of criminal conduct, to wit:

proceeds of alien trafficking and/or proceeds of drug trafficking. The currency crossed the

border without declaration. Those involved in the kidnaping of Pedro, an alien trafficker from

a competing criminal enterprise, demanded a large sum of funds from the criminal enterprise

with which he was associated in order to purchase his release. Claimant is, at least, partially

supported by Pedro with proceeds of his criminal conduct. Claimant could never raise the

sum demanded as ransom without substantial contribution of funds from the trafficking

enterprise which employed Pedro. During the course of attempting to comply with the

kidnapers’ demands, Claimant transported the res from Arizona into Mexico and back into

Arizona while concealed on her person and/or in her automobile; directed others to transport

the res from Arizona into Mexico and back into Arizona while concealing the res; and/or

received or aggregated the res, which had been transported into the United States, knowing

the required Currency and Monetary Instrument Report (“CMIR”) was not submitted each

time the funds crossed the border. Claimant also alleged she structured the transportation of

the res across the Arizona-Mexico border in such a manner that the sum required exceeded

the $10,000 amount required to be reported, but the individual amounts were less than

$10,000, in order to avoid filing of the required CMIR form.

Plaintiff’s theory is the res is proceeds of criminal conduct, essentially part of

the funds are proceeds of a conspiracy to illegally transport aliens into the United States and

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 22 Filed 11/20/08 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

part of the funds appear to be connected to trafficking in drugs. All of the res has been

involved in multiple trips across the U.S./Mexico Border without the required filing of

declarations regarding the currency referred to as CMIR forms. All of the activity supports

forfeiture under a collection of forfeiture statutes. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Judgment

on the Pleadings, based upon admissions made in the Answer. These admissions relate to the

movement of the currency across the United States-Mexico border. 

Claimant’s claim: In response to the urgent need to raise funds to satisfy a

kidnapers’ ransom demand, and working with police to monitor the demands and in

anticipation of a controlled delivery of the ransom, Claimant raised funds from several

sources including her own resources and loan proceeds from others. All these funds were

raised in Mexico, converted to U.S. currency there, and then imported into the United States

without declaration at the port of entry. 

Claimant admits the res crossed the border and the required CMIR forms were

not filed. In her Answer, she asserts she is an innocent owner of the funds pursuant to 18

U.S.C. 983(d)(1) & (3). However, this defense does not address the claims by Plaintiff

regarding bulk cash smuggling and required CMIR declarations. While Claimant denies the

funds are proceeds of alien smuggling or drug trafficking, she acknowledges the claim of

innocent owner cannot be dispositive regarding the movement of currency across the border

at her direction and with her assistance and participation. Claimant acknowledges it is

possible the entire res can be ordered forfeited. However, Claimant asserts forfeiture of the

entire res is an unconstitutionally excessive fine. A petition to contest the constitutionality

of the forfeiture of the entire res can only be filed after entry of this Judgment.

 Factual and Legal issues: The parties agree the seized currency is forfeitable

under either or both of the following theories of forfeiture: (1) Failure to report importation

of currency: 31 U.S.C. §5316(a)(2) and §5317(c)(2); and/or (2) Bulk cash smuggling: 31

U.S.C. §5332(a)(1) and (c).

The parties agree the legal issue which must be resolved is a review as to the

breadth of any forfeiture order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(g), Proportionality and the

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 22 Filed 11/20/08 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Excessive Fines Clause. This analysis may involve both legal and factual determinations. The

threshold issue is solely a question of law: whether a civil action based on bulk cash

smuggling may constitutionally allow the forfeiture of all the funds involved. If the Court

finds the entire res may be constitutionally forfeited, a proportionality determination is not

required. Otherwise, a fact based proportionality determination is needed under 18 U.S.C

§983(g) and United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998). The full extent of formal

discovery required will be apparent once the Court makes its ruling on this critical issue.

Based upon the forgoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,

docket # 17, filed on September 18, 2008, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant res in this action,

$93,110.00 in U.S. currency transported across the United States-Mexico Border in violation

of the Bulk Cash Smuggling Act, is hereby forfeited to the United States pursuant to 31

U.S.C. §5332(a)(1) and (c). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the res is also currency for which no

Currency and Monetary Instrument Report was filed when Claimant transported the

currency across the United States-Mexico Border in violation of 31 U.S.C. §5316(a)(2) and

§5317(c)(2) and is also forfeited to the United States.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service shall

delay disposing of the forfeited res pending further order of the Court, including after the

resolution of the issues identified herein, specifically, any Petition filed by Claimant seeking

to reduce or eliminate the forfeiture of the res pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(g). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless extended by court order upon

stipulation and for good cause shown, within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Judgment

and Order of Forfeiture, Claimant shall file her Proportionality Petition, as contemplated in

18 U.S.C. § 983(g), including therein all issues regarding the whether the forfeiture of the

entire res is unconstitutional. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of filing and

service of the Petition to file a Response. Claimant may file an optional Reply within fifteen

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 22 Filed 11/20/08 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

(15) days of filing and service of the Response. The Court will determine whether an

evidentiary hearing is necessary after its review of the parties’ briefings.

Dated this 19th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 22 Filed 11/20/08 Page 5 of 5