Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00946/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00946-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

The Claimant consists of the liquidators of Eurofed appointed by the High Court of Antigua to

collect and distribute the assets of Eurofed to the depositors and creditors of the bank and other courtauthorized recipients and to liquidate Eurofed. (Motion at 3 n.3.) 

2

The Government did not seek leave of Court before filing its Sur-Reply. See Local Rule of

Civil Procedure 7-3(d).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

 v.

1. $1,379,870.09 SEIZED FROM BANK OF

AMERICA ACCOUNT NUMBER W71-223433

IN THE NAME OF EUROPEAN FEDERAL

CREDIT BANK; 

2. $327,544.09 SEIZED FROM BANK OF

AMERICA ACCOUNT NUMBER W71-224464

IN THE NAME OF EUROPEAN FEDERAL

CREDIT BANK; and 

3. 923,000 UKRANIAN BONDS PLUS

INTEREST. 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-00946 MJJ

ORDER re MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Pending before the Court is Claimant Eurofed Bank Limited’s1 Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. #32). The Government has filed a Response (Doc. #40), and Claimant has filed a Reply (Doc.

#42). Additionally, the Government has filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. #44).2

 For the following reasons, the

Case 3:05-cv-00946-CRB Document 48 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Specifically, the defendant funds consist of: (1) $1,379,879 in funds seized from Bank of

America account number W71-223433 (formerly Bank Boston Robertson Stephens account number 44-

555647) in the name of European Federal Credit Bank; (2) $327,544.09 in funds seized from Bank of

America account number W71-224464 (formerly Bank Boston Robertson Stephens account number 44-

949287) in the name of European Federal Credit Bank; and (3) 923,000 Ukranian corporate bonds,

further described as EM SOVEREIGN FIN SR NTS REG S, currently maintained in an account at Bank

of America Investment Services, Inc., plus any interest derived from these bonds. (Compl. at ¶ 3(a)-(c).)

4

In June 2004, a jury convicted Lazarenko of 29 counts, including conspiracy to launder the

proceeds of foreign extortion, wire fraud, and transportation of stolen property. 

2

Court grants Claimant’s Motion as described herein. 

I. Introduction

On January 5, 2005, the Government seized certain funds and share equity (“the defendant

funds”) on deposit at Bank of America in the name of European Federal Credit Bank (Eurofed).3

Subsequently, on March 7, 2005, the Government filed a civil Complaint seeking forfeiture of the

defendant funds. According to the Complaint, the defendant funds are part of former Ukranian Prime

Minister Pavel Lazarenko’s fraudulent scheme to obtain monies and property concerning Naukovy State

Farm, a Ukranian government enterprise located in Dneproptrovsk, Ukraine, and from extorting Peter

Kiritchenko, a Ukranian businessman.4

 According to the Government, in the summer of 1997,

Kiritchenko and Lazarenko opened accounts at Eurofed and soon thereafter purchased a majority interest

in the bank. The Government alleges that Kiritchenko and Lazarenko then used Eurofed to launder the

money illegally obtained by Lazarenko from fraud and extortion. Particularly, the Government alleges

that the defendant funds are directly traceable to Lazarenko’s illegal activities. It therefore claims that

the defendant funds are subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), as property that

constitutes proceeds derived from, traceable to, and involved in money laundering transactions. 

II. Legal Standard

The statute of limitations for forfeiture actions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 is set by 19 U.S.C.

§ 1621. See 18 U.S.C. 981(d). This section provides: “No . . . forfeiture of property accruing under the

customs laws shall be instituted unless such suit or action is commenced within five years after the time

when the alleged offense was discovered, or in the case of forfeiture, within two years after the time

when the involvement of the property in the alleged offense was discovered, whichever is later[.]” 19

U.S.C. § 1621. 

Case 3:05-cv-00946-CRB Document 48 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

III. Discussion

In its Motion, Claimant argues that the Government learned of the underlying money laundering

offenses and the connection of the defendant funds those offenses no later than 1999. Thus, Claimant

contends that under either the two-year or five-year limitations period, the Government’s civil forfeiture

action is untimely.

In its Response, the Government explains that, “[i]n reviewing hundreds/thousands of pages of

documents in preparation of a response to Claimant’s pending motion, undersigned government counsel

discovered evidence that suggests that the government not only became aware of the defendant funds

prior to [receiving a December 2003 letter indicating that the funds were on deposit at Quick & Reilly],

but also was aware of the underlying offense(s) supporting the basis for forfeiture in 1999, both outside

of the applicable statute of limitations.” (Resp. at 2-3.) The Government thus concedes that the civil

forfeiture Complaint against the defendant funds is time-barred. (Id. at 3.) Accordingly, to the extent

that Claimant seeks dismissal of this forfeiture action, the Court GRANTS Claimant’s request. 

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

#32) as follows: The Government’s Complaint is dismissed as untimely. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2005 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00946-CRB Document 48 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 3