Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cr-00288/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cr-00288-20/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Susan Su
Defendant
Susan Xiao-Ping Su
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.

SUSAN XIAO-PING SU,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cr-00288-JST-1 

ORDER RE PETITION FOR 

ANCILLARY HEARING

Re: ECF Nos. 218, 220, 223

Before the Court is the petition by Hong S. Yang for an ancillary hearing regarding 

property forfeited as a result of the conviction of his ex-wife, Susan Su. ECF No. 218. The 

United States has moved to dismiss Yang’s petition for an ancillary hearing. ECF No. 220. For 

the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss Yang’s petition and deny the United States’

motion as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

A jury convicted Defendant Susan Su of mail fraud, wire fraud, false statements, and other 

crimes in connection with her establishment of Tri-Valley University in Pleasanton, California. 

ECF Nos. 199, 209. TVU was a university in name only: it offered no classes, employed no 

teaching faculty, and had no facilities for instruction. Because TVU had the status of an 

accredited university, Su was able to obtain F-1 student visas, and did so for any “student” who 

paid tuition or other fees to TVU. Although these “students” were shown as enrolled in TVU’s 

records, none of them attended classes. ECF No. 199. Id. Overall, Su collected more than $5 

million in fees from TVU, and used those funds to purchase real estate, a luxury automobile, and 

other personal items. Id.

After her conviction, the United States government sought to forfeit the properties she 

purchased with funds she collected from her scheme, the bank accounts that held proceeds from 

Case 4:11-cr-00288-JST Document 224 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 4
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

tuition fees, and other valuable property traceable to her crimes. ECF No. 129. On October 24, 

2014, the Court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture permitting the United States to take 

possession of all proceeds and property traceable to her offenses. ECF No. 199. On October 31, 

2014, at Su’s sentencing, the Court incorporated its preliminary order into Su’s sentence. ECF 

No. 203 at 2.

On December 31, 2014, Su’s ex-husband, Dr. Hong S. Yang, petitioned the court for an 

ancillary hearing to assert his interest in one of Su’s private bank accounts. Yang alleged that 

$100,000 in the account was derived from equity in a home at 3518 Ovella Way in Pleasanton, 

which Yang alleged was originally the couple’s marital property. ECF No. 218. Yang asserted a 

50% interest in that $100,000 and any property interest derived from that $100,000. Id.

The United States filed a motion to dismiss Yang’s petition. ECF No. 220. The United 

States argued that the $100,000 Yang claimed an interest in was never held in a bank account that 

the Court ordered forfeited, and that Yang had not provided evidence that the $100,000 was 

transferred into or used to purchase any of the property the government forfeited. Id. at 2.

On February 17, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 

853(n) in order to consider Yang’s petition and the United States’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 

222. At the hearing, Yang stated that the bank accounts forfeited to the United States might 

contain money derived from marital property, and that any funds in those accounts that pre-existed 

amounts traceable to the proceeds of Tri-Valley University represented marital property in which 

he owned a 50% interest.1 He presented no evidence other his own unsworn, speculative 

comments to the Court. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

After a court enters an order of forfeiture, 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) permits third parties who 

 

1 Also on February 17, 2015, Yang submitted a petition, entitled “Petition by Su’s Family To Be 

Allowed To Purchase Forfeited Property at 1371 Germano Way.” ECF No. 223. In that petition, 

Yang, on behalf of himself and his daughters, sought to purchase the 1371 Germano Way property 

for $2,000,000. Id. The mechanism by which the United States sells that property and the amount 

for which it sells are not matters that require a court order. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(7) (vesting title 

of forfeited property in United States and permitting the United States to transfer good title to any 

subsequent transferee). Accordingly, Yang’s petition at ECF No. 223 is denied.

Case 4:11-cr-00288-JST Document 224 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 4
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

may have a legal interest in the property to be forfeited to “petition the court for a hearing to 

adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property.” 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2). “At the 

hearing, the petitioner may testify and present evidence and witnesses on his own behalf and 

cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing.” Id., subsection (5). The court must also 

“consider the relevant portions of the record of the criminal case which resulted in the order of 

forfeiture.” Id.

Given the evidence at the hearing, the court must determine whether 

the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence 

that—

(A) the petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property, 

and such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid 

in whole or in part because the right, title, or interest was vested in 

the petitioner rather than the defendant or was superior to any right, 

title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the 

acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under this 

section; or

(B) the petitioner is a bona fide purchase for value of the right, title, 

or interest in the property and was at the time of purchase 

reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to 

forfeiture under this section . . . .

21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6). If the court concludes that either of the preceding is true, it must “amend 

the order of forfeiture in accordance with its determination.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c).

“Following the court’s disposition of all petitions filed under this subsection . . . the United 

States shall have clear title to property that is the subject of the order of forfeiture and may warrant 

good title to any subsequent purchaser or transferee.” 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(7). 

III. DISCUSSION

Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), Yang bears the burden of proving that either (1) he had a legal 

right, title, or interest in the forfeited property prior to or at the time Su committed her crimes; or 

(2) that he was a bona fide purchaser for value of a right, title, or interest in the forfeited property 

after Su committed her crimes. Here, Yang has made no allegations that the latter is true; the sole 

question is whether he has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he possessed a legal 

interest in any of the forfeited property at the time that Su committed her crimes.

Case 4:11-cr-00288-JST Document 224 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

At the hearing, Yang provided no evidence that would tend to show that he had any 

interest in any of the forfeited property, or that any forfeited property was traceable, in whole or in 

part, to a legal interest that had vested in him prior to Su’s crimes. The private bank account that 

contained the $100,000 Yang identified in his petition was not forfeited. Yang surmised that some 

of the $100,000 that Su deposited in the account named in his petition could have been transferred 

to an account that was forfeited, but Yang provided no evidence to support this speculation. 

Given that Yang produced no evidence at the hearing, but rather only speculated that he 

may have had an interest that could be traceable to the forfeited property, the Court finds that 

Yang has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to any of the 

property that is subject to forfeiture pursuant to the Court’s October 31, 2014 order.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby dismisses Yang’s petition and finds that its 

October 31, 2014 order of forfeiture should not be amended to account for any third party 

interests.

2 Accordingly, the October 31, 2014 order of forfeiture is final. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32.2(c)(2). The United States’ motion to dismiss Yang’s petition is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

2

The time has elapsed for any other third party to assert an interest in the property to be forfeited. 

See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2) (providing that any petition for an ancillary hearing must be filed 

“within thirty days of the final publication of notice or . . . receipt of notice . . ., whichever is 

earlier”).

Case 4:11-cr-00288-JST Document 224 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 4