Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00021/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00021-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Approximately $5,710.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Daniel Polotsky
Claimant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 $5,710.00 IN U.S. 

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

2:15-MC-00021-WBS-EFB 

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF 

FORFEITURE

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

1. On October 16, 2014, agents with the United States Postal Inspection 

Service (“USPIS”) seized approximately $5,710.00 in U.S. Currency (the defendant 

currency”) from Daniel Polotsky (“Polotsky”) during a parcel interdiction at the 

Processing and Distribution Center located in West Sacramento, California. 

2. USPIS commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings, sending direct 

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

about December 18, 2014, USPIS received a claim from Polotsky asserting an ownership 

interest in the defendant currency.

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

October 16, 2014, USPIS conducted a parcel interdiction at the Processing and 

Distribution Center located at 3775 Industrial Boulevard, West Sacramento, California. 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN

Assistant U. S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

Attorneys for the United States

Case 2:15-mc-00021-WBS-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 4
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

During the interdiction, law enforcement officials identified a parcel that bore markers 

consistent with parcels used for shipping contraband. An investigation revealed that 

Polotsky had mailed the package to Igor Ainbinder (“Ainbinder”) in Colfax, California. 

Law enforcement agents contacted Polotsky, who confirmed that he had sent the 

package. 

4. The United States represents that it could further show at a forfeiture trial 

that law enforcement officials presented the package to a drug detection dog, and the dog 

positively alerted to the presence of the odor of narcotics. Law enforcement officials 

contacted Ainbinder, who gave consent to open the parcel. Ainbinder said the parcel 

contained approximately $6,000.00 in U.S. Currency. When the parcel was opened, law 

enforcement officials located two magazines with cash concealed inside the pages. The 

cash totaled $5,710.00 in various denominations. 

5. The United States represents that it could further show at a forfeiture trial 

that Ainbinder told law enforcement officials that Polotsky had sent the money as a loan 

to help Ainbinder pay his bills. Polotsky confirmed that he had sent the money to 

Ainbinder to help him pay his rent. He also told law enforcement officials that he is not 

gainfully employed but makes money selling items online and scalping tickets. Polotsky 

said he had sent the money in the magazine and wrapped the magazines in carbon paper 

to prevent the money from being stolen. Law enforcement officials informed Polotsky 

that the parcel sent to Ainbinder did not include carbon paper and asked if he was 

thinking of another parcel. Polotsky said he must have forgotten that he did not wrap 

the magazines in carbon paper. Ainbinder told law enforcement officials that he has a 

medical marijuana card but denied selling marijuana to Polotsky. 

6. The United States could further show at a forfeiture trial that the 

defendant currency is forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). 

7. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained in this 

stipulation, claimant specifically denying the same, and for the purpose of reaching an 

amicable resolution and compromise of this matter, claimant agrees that an adequate 

Case 2:15-mc-00021-WBS-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 4
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

factual basis exists to support forfeiture of the defendant currency. Polotsky 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, claimant shall hold harmless and indemnify the 

United States, as set forth below.

8. 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.

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

district in which the defendant currency was seized.

10. 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:

1. The Court adopts the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture 

entered into by and between the parties.

2. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, $2,710.00 of the 

Approximately $5,710.00 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.

3. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, but no later than 60 

days thereafter, $3,000.00 of the Approximately $5,710.00 in U.S. Currency shall be 

returned to claimant Daniel Polotsky through his attorney Darryl A. Goldberg.

4. 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 

Case 2:15-mc-00021-WBS-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 4
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

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

as to those now known or disclosed. Claimants waived the provisions of California Civil 

Code § 1542. 

5. 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.

6. All parties will bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.

7. 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: March 23, 2015

Case 2:15-mc-00021-WBS-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 4