Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00007/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00007-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Soltero
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE SOLTERO,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cr-00007-SI-1 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 255

Now before the Court is defendant's motion for an Order to Show Cause. Defendant's 

motion seeks an order requiring the government to show cause why it has failed to comply with 

the Court's July 21, 2015 order to produce to defendant "[a]ll currency remaining in the United 

States' custody, approximately $1000" by July 31, 2015. Dkt. 247. The Court held a hearing on 

the motion on September 11, 2015, and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs and 

declarations regarding all of the forfeiture proceedings in this case. The Court has reviewed all of 

these materials, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES defendant's motion for an 

order to show cause.

DISCUSSION

On July 20, 2015, the government and counsel for the defendant entered into a Stipulation 

and Proposed Order for the return of certain property seized from the defendant during the 

investigation in this case. Dkt. No. 246. On July 21, 2015, the Court signed the Order. Dkt. No. 

247. The items sought to be returned include: “a belt buckle, all documents, including, but not 

limited to financial documents and DMV records, 4 gold coins (Krugerrands), the defendant’s 

passport, back packs purchased from Gilroy Outlets, an AT&T LG phone along with a SIM card, 

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 278 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and all currency remaining in the United States’ custody, approximately $1,000.” Id.

Defendant brings the present motion because the government failed to return the currency 

pursuant to the stipulation. The government responds that it stipulated to the return of the money 

under the mistaken belief that defendant had a legitimate ownership interest in the seized money. 

Assistant United States Attorney Michael Maffei states, "At the time I agreed to the Stipulation 

and Proposed Order Returning Property to Defendant Jose Soltero by July 31, 2015, I did not 

know that the money the defense attorneys requested be returned to their client was the 'marked' 

FBI money used in the extortion scheme." Dkt. 259 ¶ 2. 

Defendant argues that the Court should enforce the stipulation and require the government 

to return the seized currency. The government contends that because defendant never had a 

legitimate ownership interest in the currency, defendant has "unclean hands" and cannot now 

demand its return, even where the government erroneously agreed to do so.

The Court concludes that based on the facts of this case, the Court will not enforce the 

stipulation. It is undisputed that the seized currency at issue was the marked money that the FBI 

used in the undercover sting operation that ultimately led to defendant's arrest for extortion. The 

government, through AUSA Maffei, has filed a sworn declaration stating that at the time the 

government agreed to the stipulation, the government did not know that the money was the 

marked funds used in the extortion scheme. Under these circumstances, the Court finds it would 

be against public policy to require the government to return this money to defendant. See Kardoh 

v. United States, 572 F.3d 697, 700-702 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the doctrine of in pari delico

prevented individual from obtaining the court's assistance in recovering money voluntarily paid in 

furtherance of an illegal contract); United States v. Farrell, 606 F.2d 1341, 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1979) 

("[I]t is contrary to public policy to permit the courts to be used by the wrongdoer Farrell to obtain 

the property he voluntarily surrendered as part of his attempt to violate the law. If as the cases hold 

it is sound public policy to deny the use of the courts to persons in pari delicto who seek the return 

of illegally paid money, a fortiori it is sound public policy to deny the aid of the courts to a single 

violator of the law who seeks the return of money paid to a government agent in an attempt to 

contract for the purchase of contraband drugs.").

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 278 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In the course of briefing defendant's motion for an order to show cause, the Court also 

requested that the government provide additional information regarding the administrative 

forfeitures of other money and vehicles seized from defendant. The Court has reviewed this 

supplemental briefing, and the Court continues to find it curious that approximately $30,000 and 

two vehicles were administratively forfeited to individuals who were defendant's extortion victims 

(and drug dealers). The Court notes, however, that the propriety of those proceedings, as well as 

the question of whether defendant may have any recourse with regard to those administrative 

forfeitures, is not before the Court at this time, and thus the Court makes no findings or rulings 

regarding the administrative forfeitures. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cr-00007-SI Document 278 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 3