The a bove-na med individuals are not the only natura l persons who have filed 1 claims in this case. See Ver ified Claim of Alexei Ditiatkovsky , Ver ified Claim of Alexander L azare nko, Ver ified Claim of Pavel L azare nko. For the purposes of

this Opinion, when the Court uses the term “ individual claimants,” it ref ers only to Ms. Col lazo, Mr. Munro, Mr. Ony sh ko , M s. Pos tle s and Mr . Po stl e s. 1 UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________ ) UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 04-0798 ) AL LASSETS HEL D AT ) BA NK JUL IUS BAER & COMPANY, L TD., ) Guer nsey Br anch, A ccount Numbe r ) 121128, in the name of

Pavlo L azare nko, ) last valued at approxim ately $2 milli on ) in United States dollars, et al., ) ) De fe nd ants in rem
. ) __________________________________________)
OPI NI ON In this civil forfeiture action in rem, individuals Maria de L os Ang eles Collazo Gar cia, Allan Rona ld Munro, Mervin Micha elson Ony shko, Alan Mar k Postl es and Jacqueline Postl es (c ollectively , “the individual claimants” ) have filed cla ims to t he def endant a ssets sought by the United States. The United States ha s reque sted the Court to strike those claims or e nter 1 judgme nt ag ainst the claimants. See Plaintiff’ s Motion to S trike the Claims Filed by [t he Ind iv idual Cl aim ant s] , o r, i n t he A lt erna ti ve, Mo ti on for S um mary

J ud gment (“M ot .”). By Orde r of Septembe r 30, 2009, the Court g rante d the motion filed by the United States and struc kThe Court’s Septembe r 30, 2009 Orde r denie d the United States’ motion for 2 summary judgme nt on the claim of Ms. Collazo because the Court has not rea ched the merits on that matter. That denial was w ithout prejudice, a nd by separ ate Or der issued toda y , the Se pte mbe r 3 0 O rd e r w ill be ame nd e d to re fl e c t th at f a c t. 2 the claims in question. As an a lternative disposition, the Court also rende red judg ment in favor of the United States on a ll claims ex cept that of Ms. Coll azo. This Opinion ex plains the
rea soning be hind that Order
. 2
I . BA CKGROUND

At issue for the pur

poses of the pr esent motion is a larg e amount of mone y — tens of millions of dollars — trace able to an Antigua n bank, Eurof

ed B ank L imited. See Mot. at 2-3. The United States alleg es that those funds we re g ener ated by the cr iminal activities of Pavlo I vanovich L azare nko, a Ukr ainian politician who, with the aid of various assoc iates, wa s “able to acquire hundreds of milli ons of United States dollars through a var iety of ac ts of fra

ud, extorti on, bribery , misappropriation and/or e mbezz lement” c ommitt ed duringthe 1990s. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“A m. Compl .”) ¶ 10. The United States a lleg es that in 1997 L azare nko and an a ssociate, Peter Kiritchenko, obta ined control of E urofe d, id. ¶ 66, and then proce eded to c y cle a lmost $100 m illion t hroug h various Eurof ed ac counts in order

to launder the fu nd s, wh ic h w e re pr oc e e ds of L a zar e nk o’ s c ri min a l a c tiv iti e s. Pla int if f’ s State me nt o f F a c ts (“Pl.’s Statement”) ¶ 1. L azare nko’s funds constituted the bulk of Eur ofed’ s deposits, id. ¶ 2, althoug h the bank did hold the asse ts of some depositors who we re not a ffiliated with L azare nko or his associate s (“third-pa rty depositors”). See id. ¶ 6. In 1999 Eurofe d was plac ed in re ceive rship and subseque ntly enter ed liquidation. Pl.’s St atement ¶

5. A larg e amount of mone y held for E urofe d in offshore acc ounts, including3

approximately

$85 milli on held in United States financ ial instit utions, was returne d to Antigua
. Mo t. at 3; Am . Co mpl . ¶

76 . T he ba

nk ’s liq uid ator s th e n p ro c e e de d to se t a sid e a pp ro ximate ly $20 milli on of the ba

nk’s collec ted assets for

distribution among “third pa rty depositors and
cre ditors” of the ba

nk. Pl.’s St atement ¶

6. Approxim ately

$14 milli on of that money has since been disburse d to parties whose claims ag ainst the bank have bee n validated by Eurofe d’s liq uid ator s. I d. ¶ 7 . Wh ile aro un d $ 3 mi lli on thu s r e ma ins to s atis fy

any sti ll- outst and ingc la ims of third-pa

rty depositors and c reditors, Eur ofed’ s liquidators estimate that the amount still owed to t ho se pa rt ie s is g re ate r t

ha n $ 11 mil lio n. Mo t., Ex. 2 at 16 . O f t he oth e r E ur of

e d a sse ts h e ld in Antigua , all those “de signated to Pavlo L azare nko and assoc iated compa nies” have bee n frozen by the Antig uan Hig h Court. Mot. at 3. The United States initiated this proce edingon May 14, 2004, seekingthe civil forfe iture of va

rious L azare nko assets pursua nt to feder al statutes that provide f or the forf eiture to the g overnme nt of funds trac eable or otherw ise related to criminal ac tivity that
oc c ur re d at le a st i n p art

in t he Un ite d St ate s. Se e Am . Co mpl . ¶ 1. Am on gthe L a zar e nk o a sse ts soug ht is approxi mately

$85.5 milli on curr ently

held in Antigua

under the control of the E urofe d liquidators and Antig ua’s High Court Reg istrar. I d. ¶ 5(d) . Those funds de rive fr om various
no w- liq uid ate d a c c ounts that w e re a lle g e dly op e ne d at E ur of

e d f or L a zar e nk o’ s b e ne fi t, e ith e r i n h i s o w nn am e o r

th ato f o n e o r m o r e a s s o c i at e s o r

a f f i l i at e d o r g an i z at i o n s . Id
. ¶

¶ 5 ( d )
- ( e )
. In
a dd iti on to t ho se Euro fe d f

un ds he ld i n A nti g ua , th e Un ite d St ate s h a s n ame d a s d e fe nd ants in
rem the contents of still-exist ing a ccounts ope ned in the name of Eurof ed at a varie ty of off shoreTh e Court pr e vio us ly

he ld t hat th e Un ite d St ate s h a s a de qu ate ly state d c la ims 3 un de r R ule 12 (b )( 6) of

the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure . Se e Un ite d St ate s v . A ll A sse ts Held at B ank Jul ius Bae r & Co., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1, 17 (D.D.C. 2008).

Two of the f

ive claimants, Ala

n Mark Postles and Jacqueline Postles, filed a joint 4 no tic e of c la im. 4 financ ial instit utions, including B anque SCS Alliance S.A. (Ge neva) , Vilniaus Ba nkas, and
sever al banks in L iechtenste in. See id. ¶¶ 5( f)- (i). 3

In Fe bruar

y 2008, the United States mailed to third-pa rty depositors of Eurof

ed
a le tte r l ist ingthe a sse ts n ame d a s d e fe nd ants in t his a c tio n a

nd inf or min gthe de po sit or s th at to intervene in the pendingforf eiture a ction, they

would need to f

ile a cla im and an answ er pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for A dmiralty or Mar itime Cl aims and Asset F orfe iture Actions (“Supplementa l Rules”), which a re a subset of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. Se e Mo t., Ex. 4 . B e tw e e n M arc h 3 , 2 00 8, and July 17 , 2 00 8, fo ur

do c ume nts purp or

tin gto
c on ta in c la ims to p or

tio ns of the de fe nd ant f

un ds we re fi le d b y

the fi ve ind ivi du a l c la ima nts , a ll
o f w h o mar e p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e . Th e Un ite d St ate s f ile d th e pe nd ingmot ion

to s tr ike tho se 4 claims on Dec ember

9, 2008. Although the Court warne d the claimants, through an Or der issued
on May 22 , 2 00 9, that any

fa ilure on

the ir pa rt to o pp os e the Un ite d St ate s’ mot ion c ou ld r e su lt in the striking of

their cla ims, only

one cla imant, Mr. Ony shko, submitt ed any kind of response
. No ne of the c la ima

nts ha s f ile d a n a ns we r t o th e c omp la int
. I I . DI SCUS SI ON Th e Un ite d St ate s ma int a ins that th e c la ima nts have fa ile d to me e t th e ir obligations under Rule G of the Supplementa l Rules because they have ne ither establishedThe United States a lso argues that the individual claimants lac k constitutional 5 standing . For

further discussion of that issue, see inf ra note 7. 5 statutory standing nor complied with the Rule’s pr ocedur al re quirements. See Mot. at 1-2. A 5 thi rd po te nti a l g ro un d f

or ru lin ga g a ins t th e c la ima nts aro se a ft e r t

he Un ite d St ate s f

ile d it s mot ion : no ne of

the ind ivi du a l c la ima

nts fi le d a pr op e r r e sp on se to t

he mot ion . T he Court

wi ll dis c us s th e c on se qu e nc e s o f t his pr oc e dura l de fa

ult be fo re tur

nin gto t he oth e r a rgume nts . A. Failure to Respond Under the L ocal Rules of this Court, a par ty ’s fa ilure to oppose a motion in a tim e ly mann e r b y

su bmi tti ng“ a

me mor and

um o f p oints a

nd a uth or iti e s” a

uth or ize s th e Court

to deem that motion conce ded. See L . Civ. R. 7(b); see also F ox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F .3d 12 91 , 1 29 4 ( D. C. C ir . 2 00 4) ; B e ll v . L ibr ary of Con g re ss, 53 9 F . Su

pp . 2 d 4 11 , 4 13 (D .D .C. 2008). In this case, pur suant to Fox v. S trickland, 837 F .2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1998), and N eal v. Kelly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992), the Court issued an Or der on Ma y 22, 2009, in which i twa rn edth e i n d i v i d

u al cl ai m an t s , al l p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , that their fa ilure to respond to the pe nd ingmot ion

c ou ld l e a d to the dis mis sa l of the ir c la ims . It a lso ins tr

uc te d th e c la ima

nts to f ile an opposition to the moti on on or bef ore July 15, 2009. De sp ite thi s O rd e r, and

the many months that ha

ve pa sse d s inc e the Un ite d St ate s initially filed its motion t o strike, the individual claimants have failed to submit a prope r op po sit ion . O nly

Mr . O ny sh ko ha s f

ile d a ny re sp on se wh atso e ve r, and that r e sp on se c on sis ts only of an a ffidavit in which Mr. O ny shko sets forth no fa cts, but states his personal be lief that he has a “g ood and valid cla im ag ainst Paulo I vonovich L azare nko and Associates.” See Affida vit of Mervin Michae lson Ony shko ¶ 3. In the abse nce of any direc t answer

by the6

claimants to the leg al and f actua l arguments made by the United States, this Court has the discretion under

Rule 7 of the L ocal Civil Rules to gra nt the motion. Bec ause the parties he re ar e i n d i v i d

u al s p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , h ow e ve r, and be c a us e the pr a c tic a l outc ome wi ll b e the same whether the motion is adjudicated on the mer its or deemed c oncede d, the Court will address the
argume nts pr e se nte d b y

the Un ite d St ate s a

nd e xpla in why

the c la ims of

the ind ivi du a ls i n question cannot succ eed.
B. Proce dural Omissions

To c on te st the fo rf

e iture of pr op e rt y that ha s b e e n n ame d a s a de fe nd ant i n a

c ivi l forf eiture a ction, a cla imant must proceed “ in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Ce rt a in A dmi ra lty

a nd Mari tim e Cla ims [an d A sse t F or fe iture Ac tio ns ],” wh ic h a re the mse lve s a subset of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. 18 U .S.C. § 983(a)(4) (A). Rule Gof the Sup ple me nta l Ru le s, wh ic h g ov e rn s f or fe iture a c tio ns in rem broug ht pursuant to fede ral statut e s, se ts o ut d e ta ile d p ro c e du ra l r e qu ir e me nts to b e fo llo we d b y a pe rs on or e nti ty se e kin gto challeng e the g overnme nt’s attempt to seize defenda nt assets. See S UPP . R. G (5 ), (6 ). With in the amou nt o f t ime pr e sc ri be d b y

Sup ple me nta l Ru le G( 5) (a )( ii) , a wo uld -b e c la ima

nt m us t f ile wi th t he c ourt pr e sid ingov e r t

he fo rf e iture a c tio n a

c la im t hat ( 1) “ ide nti f[i e s] th e sp e c if ic proper ty claimed,” (2) “ identif[ies] the claimant a nd state[s] the claimant’ s interest in the proper ty ,” and ( 3) is “sig ned by

the claimant unde r pena lty of per jury .” S UPP . R. G(5)(a )(i)( A)- (C). She or he must also file either a motion to di smiss t he g overnme nt’s complaint or an a nswer to that complaint no more than 20 da y s after first filing he r ver ified cla im. S UPP . R
. G ( 5 ) ( b )
. In requiringa cla imant to follow these proc edure s, the Supplemental Rules “ensur [e] that putative
c la ima nts c ome fo rw ard

a s q uic kly a s p os sib le a ft e r t

he ini tiatio n o f f

or fe iture pr oc e e din g s soTh e Un ite d St ate s a lso argue s th at th e c la ima nts have fa ile d to fi le pr op e r c la ims 6 be c a us e tho se c la ims do no t “ ide nti fy the sp e c if

ic pr op e rt y c la ime d” or

“ the c la ima

nt’ s inte re st in the proper

ty .” See Mot. at 16,18. The Court addre sses the suffic iency (or lac k there of) of

the c la ima nts ’ s ub sta

nti ve a sse rt ion s inf

ra at 12-15. 7 that the cour

t may hear all interested pa

rties and r esolve the dispute without delay .” United State s v . F un ds fr om P ru de nti a l Se c ur iti e s, 30 0 F . Su pp . 2 d 9 9, 10 4 ( D. D. C. 2 00 4) (r e fe rr ingto Rule G’s pre dece ssor, Rule C(6)).

B e c a us e the pr oc e dure s p re sc ri be d b y the Sup ple me nta l Ru le s p lay an im po rt ant role in structuringforf

eiture suits and e nsuringthat they proce ed ef

ficiently , a cour

t is authorized to strike the claim and/or

answe r of a

ny claimant who f

ails to follow the Rules’ proce dural dictates. See S UPP . R. G (8 )( c )( i) (A ). Court s g e ne ra lly e xpe c t c la ima

nts to a dh e re str ic tly

to those requir ements. See United States v. $83,686.00, 498 F. Supp. 2d 21, 24 (D.D.C. 2007) (citingUnited States v. $104,674.00, 17 F.3d 267, 268- 69 (8th Cir. 1994) and United States v. Amiel, 995 F.2d 367, 371 ( 2d Cir. 1993)). In some circ umstances, howe ver, e specia lly wher e cl ai m an t s ar e p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , courts may excuse some minor proce dural fa ilings so longas “the unde rlying g oals of” the Supplemental Rules “ar e not frustrated.” United States v. F unds from Prudential Sec urities, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 104 (c ollectingcase s).

The United States a

rgues that the c laims at issue here should be stricken be cause (1) of the four c laims, only

Ms. Coll azo’s was sig ned under penalty of per jury as re quired by Supplemental Rule G(5)( a)( i)(C), see Mot. at 20-21; and (2) the claimants have not filed a nswers to the complaint as re quired by Supplemental Rule G(5)( b). See Mot. at 13- 16. Be cause the 6 Court fi nd s th e se c on d f

a ili ngdis po sit ive , it

do e s n ot a dd

re ss t he fi rs t.8 The a nswer to a

complaint serve s to “apprise the opponent of those a lleg ations in the complaint that stand admitted and w ill not be in is sue at trial a nd those that are contested a nd will require pr oof to be e stablished to enable the plaintiff to preva il.” 5 C H A RLES A L AN W R I GHT & A RT H U R R. M I L L ER , F ED ER A L P RACTI CE & P ROCE D U RE § 1 26 1 ( 3d e d. 20 04 ). As of

the date of thi s O pin ion , mo re tha

n a y e ar a ft e r t

he ind ivi du a l c la ima

nts ma de the ir

a pp e ara nc e s in thi s case , not one of them ha s filed the answ er r equire d by the Supplemental Rules. The c omplaint fi le d b y the Un ite d St ate s in

thi s c a se c on sis ts o f 1 55 de ta ile d p ara g ra ph s c on c e rn ingthe or ig ins , transfe r, owne rship and distribution of tens of millions of doll ars. Unle ss the claimants file a n answe r to that complaint, the United States — and the Court — must guess at which alleg ations in that complaint are undisputed or irre levant to a pa rticular c laimant and which w ill have to be proven by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Althoug h the individual claimants are pr o s e and so are entitled to some leniency , “the less string ent standar d for pr o s e litigants does not allow them to simpl y disreg ard the applicable L ocal a nd Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e or r ender the cour t [or the op po sin gpa

rt y ] the de c isi onmake r o f ‘ wh at c la ims a [liti g ant] m ay

or may no t w ant t o a sse rt .’ ” Un ite d St ate s v . F un ds fr om P ru de nti a l Se c ur iti e s, 36 2 F . Su pp . 2 d 7 5, 82 (D .D .C. 2005) (c iting Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F . Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987)).

Moreove r, the c ircumstance s that have sometimes be en held to excuse a failure to file an a nswer a re not pre sent in this case. A c ourt may consider the following , amongother things, in dete rmining whether a cla imant’s proce dural de fault should be excused: the c laimant’s g ood faith attempts to comply with proce dural re quirements; the date upon which the c laimant
rec eived notice of the pe nding f orfe iture ac tion; any

reque sts by

the claimant to ame nd the pleading s or for a

n extension of tim e; any

rea sons proffe red by

the claimant f

or the omission; and whe ther pre

judice to the United States will result fr om excusing the c laimant’s proc edura l9

err ors. See United States v. $83,686.00, 498 F . Supp. 2d at 24. Here , the claimants we re persona lly

notified of this forfe iture ac tion by letter in F ebrua

ry 2008. See Pl.’s Statement ¶ 8. That letter spe cifica lly

informed e ach c laimant of the oblig ation to file an a nswer to ( or a motion to d ism iss ) t

he Un ite d St ate s’ c omp la int . Se e Mo t., Ex. 4 at 1. Th e c la ima nts we re a g a in apprised of

that duty by the pendingmotion to s trike, which e x plains the claimants’ pr ocedur al obligations in som e deta il. See Mot. at 13-16. Fina lly , the Court by an Or der issued Ma

y 22, 2009, apprised the claimants of the c onsequenc es of their failure to respond to the pre sent motion. Despite these war nings, not one of the c laimants has filed a n answe r, off

ere d
re a so ns fo r t

he fa ilure to f

ile , o r r e qu e ste d a

n e xten sio n o f t ime . A s a re su lt, the Court

c an o nly conclude that the individual claimants either a re unw illing or una

ble to take the a ctions
nece ssary to preser ve their c laims, and that to permit those claims to rema in on the rec ord de sp ite the c la ima

nts ’ s ile nc e wo uld

pr e jud ic e the Un ite d St ate s, wh ic h c ann ot b e c e rt a in o f i ts dis c ov e ry ob lig atio ns un til it h a s so me ide a of the fa c ts that w ill be dis pute d b y e a c h p art y to t his
su it. Th e Court

ha s st ri c ke n th e c la ims in l ig ht o f t he ind ivi du a l c la ima

nts ’ f a ilure to f ile
ans we rs to t

he c omp la int
. C. Th e Cla im an ts’

In te re st i n th e De

fe nd an t Pro pe rty Supplemental Rule G(5)( a)( i) requir es that a c laimant in a forf eiture a ction in
rem “asse rt[] an intere st in the defenda nt property .” Without s uch an inter est, the cla imant lacks standing under the Supplemental Rules to challeng e the f orfe iture. See S UPP . R. G(8)(c )(i)( B) ; Un ite d St ate s v . F un ds fr om P ru de nti a l Se c ur iti e s, 30 0 F . Su pp . 2 d at 10 3 ( re fe rr ingto Sup ple me nta l Ru le C( 6) , th e pr e de c e sso r o f S up ple me nta l Ru le s G (5 ) a nd G( 6) ); JohnK. Ra

bie j,Th e Un ite d St ate s h a s c ha ra c te ri zed thi s st and ingre qu ir e me nt a s c on sti tut ion a l, 7 see Mot. at 23- 26, but it is embedde d in the text of Supplemental Rule G. See S UPP . R. G( 5) (a )( i) (r e qu ir inga

c la ima nt t o “ a sse rt [] an

int e re st” in t

he de fe nd ant p ro pe rt

y ); S UPP . R. G(6) (p e rm itt ingthe Un ite d St ate s to se rv e int e rr og ator ie s r e g ard ingthe c la ima nt’ s “ re latio ns hip to the de fe nd ant p ro pe rt

y ” ); S UPP . R. 8(c)( ii)(B ) (a llowing the United States to move for summary j u d g m e n ta s t o “ w h e th e r

th e c l a i m an tc anc ar

r y th e b ur d e no f

e s t a b l i s h i n gs t an d i n gb y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e”) . The Court there fore thinks itmore log ical to cha rac terize the ob lig atio n o f t

he c la ima nt t o d e mon str ate a

pa rt ic ula r k ind of int e re st i n th e de fe nd ant p ro pe rt y as a statutory

standing require ment rathe r than a constitutional one. I t does not opine on the i n j ury th ata c l ai m an tmu s tas s erti no rd er t o h av e A rt i cl e II Is t an d i n g. 10 Supplemental Rule G Gover ning Pre trial Procedur es in For feiture in Rem Actions, P R AC . L IT IG ., May 20 08 , at 47 , 5 5. “ Th e e xtent of the int e re st i n th e de fe nd ant p ro pe rt y su ff ic ie nt t o me e t th is standing require ment is left to case law.” Ra biej, su pra , at 55; see a lso United States v. Funds from Prudential Sec urities, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 103 (c laimant must “demonstrat[e] an interest . . .
su ff ic ie nt t o s atis fy

the c ourt of his sta nd ing ” ). Ul tim ate ly , a

c la ima nt m us t do mor e tha

n me re ly
as se rt such an inter est; she or he bear s the burden of provingits ex istence by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. See S UPP . R. G(8)(c )(ii)(B ). Be cause Mr. Munro, Mr. Ony shko and the Postles 7 have pr oduced no e vidence that sug g ests they could meet that bur den at a trial or hea

ring , the Court gr anted summary

judgme nt to the United States on their claims. See id.

1. Standard of Re view I f a c laimant lacks standingor does not comply with the proce dures se t out in Supplemental Rule G, the United States may move, as it has her e, to dispose of the c laim. S UPP . R. G(8)(c )(i)( A)-( B) . Such a motion may “be pr esente d” in either

of two wa

y s: “as a motion for judgme nt on the pleading s or as a motion to determine . . . by summary judgme nt whether

the claimant ca

n car ry the burde n of establishingstanding by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e.” S UPP . R. G (8 )( c )( ii) (B ). In th is c a se , s inc e the Un ite d St ate s h a s p hr a se d it s mo tio n a s a re qu e st11

e ith e r f or jud g me nt o n th e ple a din g s o r f or summa ry jud g me nt, se e Mo t. at 2, the Court mus t decide which standa

rd of r eview is more appropr iate for the situation at hand. The pe nding motion is better f rame d as a r equest for

summary judgme nt rather than judg ment on the pleading s. The latter is permitted only

“[a]fter the plea dings a

re c losed.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(c) . Since none of the individual claimants has filed a n answe r to the
c omp la int , th e ple a din g s in thi s c a se te c hn ic a lly

are no t c los e d, makin gjud g me nt b a se d o n th os e ple a din g s in a

pp ro pr iate . Se e 5C C H A RLES A L AN W R I GH T & A RT H U R R. M I L L ER , F ED ER AL P RACTI CE & P ROCE D U RE § 1369 (3d ed. 2004) . Fur thermore , eac h of the c laimants has attac hed
mate ri a ls o uts ide the ple a din g s — le tte rs , b ank

state me nts , o the r f

ina nc ia l r e c or ds , a

nd a ff ida vit s — to his or her stateme nt of claim, makingrevie w under a summary

judgme nt standard pr oper. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(d). Fina lly , in sty ling its motion in part as one for summary judgme nt, the Un i t edS t at es o b l i gat edth e c l ai m an t s t o re s p o n d b y “s et [ t i n g] o u ts p ec i fi c f

ac t s s h o wi n g a g enuine issue f

or trial.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(e)( 2). I f the c laimants have f ailed to do so, then under a summary judgme nt standard, the motion of the United States should be g rante d. See id. Th e Court

the re fo re wi ll gra

nt t he Un ite d St ate s’ mot ion

on ly if the c la ima

nts cannot pr evail under

the standar d of re view appr opriate f or a summar

y judgme nt motion. Summary jud g me nt “ sh ou ld b e re nd e re d if the ple a din g s, the dis c ov e ry and dis c los ur e mate ri a ls on file, and a

ny aff idavits [ or dec larations] show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c) ; see also Ander son v. L iberty

L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) ; Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 ( D.C. Cir. 2006). “A f act is ‘mate rial’ if a

dispute over it might a ffe ct the
o u t c o m e o f

a s u i tun d e r

th e g o v e r n i n gl aw ; f

a c tu a l d i s p u t e s th atar e ‘ i r r e l e v an to r

un n e c e s s ar

y’ do not affe ct the summary judgme nt determination.” H olcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d at 89512

(quoting Ander son v. L iberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. at 248). An issue is “g enuine” if the
e vid e nc e is s uc h th at a

re a so na ble jur y c ou ld r e tur

n a ve rd ic t f or the no nmo vin gpa

rt y . Se e Sc ott
v. Ha rr is, 55 0 U .S. 37 2, 38 0 ( 20 07 ); An de rs on v. L ibe rt y L ob by , Inc ., 47 7 U .S. at 24 8; H olc omb v. Powell, 433 F.3d at 895.

“[T] he evide nce of

the non-movant is to be believe d, and all justifiable infe renc es are to b e dr awn

in [h e r] f avo r. ” An de rs on

v. L ibe rt y L ob by , Inc ., 47 7 U .S. at 25 5; s e e a lso Mastro v. Potomac Elec . Power Co., 447 F.3d 843, 849- 50 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The nonmoving pa rt y ’s op po sit ion , h ow e ve r, mus t c on sis t of mor e tha n me re un su

pp or te d a lle g atio ns or

de nia ls
and mus t be su

pp or te d b y a ff ida vit s, de c lara

tio ns or oth e r c omp e te nt e vid e nc e , s e tti ngfo rt h specific fac ts showing that ther e is a g enuine issue f or trial. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(e) ; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). The nonmovant is require d to provide evide nce that
w o u l d p e r m i ta r e a s o n a b l e j ur y t o f i n d i nh i s o r h e r f av o r . L an i n g h amv . U n i t e d S t at e s N av y, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242 ( D.C. Cir. 1987). I f the nonmovant’s e vidence is “mere ly colora ble” or

“ n o ts i g n i f

i c an t l y p r o b at i v e , ” s u m m ar y j u d g m e n tm ay b e g r an t e d
. A n d e r s o nv . L i b e rty L o b b y, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249-50.
2. An a ly sis

As explained above, to mount a succ essful cha lleng e to the United States’
c o mp l a i n ta g a i n s tth e d e f e n d an tp r o p e rty, th e c l a i m an t s mu s t , am o n go th e r th i n g s , p r o v e b y a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that th e y

have a c og niza ble int e re st i n th e a sse ts p ote nti a lly subject to forf

eiture. See United States v. Funds f rom Prudential Secur ities, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 10 3. At the summa

ry jud g me nt s ta g e , th at me ans that e a c h c la ima nt m us t po int to s ome e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d th at w ou ld a llo w a re a so na ble fa c tf ind e r t o c on c lud e that su c h a n inte re st13

e x i s t s . O f

th e f i v e i n d i v i d

u a l s c l a i m an t s d i s c u s s e d

h e r e , o n l y M s . C o l l a z o c ane v e nar g u a b l y me e t th is r e qu ir e me nt. (a ) M r. Munr o’ s Cl a im

Mr. Munro submitted a dec laration in which he explains that he lost som e $8 0, 00 0 in

a “ Qu antum G old

Sc am” and

e xpre sse s h is h op e that he may re c ov e r s ome of

tho se funds in the pendingforf

eiture a ction. See Dkt. No. 71 ( Munro Claim) at 9. The only ref ere nce to a ny e nti ty a ff ili ate d w iththi s c a se c on ta ine d in his de c laratio n o r t

he atta c he d e xhibi ts i s a c re dit c ard state me nt i n th e name of on e Mic ha e l D a le that be ars Euro fe d’ s n ame on its letterhe ad. I d. at 4. Mr. Munro doe s not ex plain how or whe ther Eur ofed, L azare nko, or any of the assets at stake in this action relate to the scam to which he appa rently fell pre y . He ne ither alleg es nor pr ovides evidenc e to support an infe renc e that he ha s a leg al intere st in any of the defe ndant assets. (b ) M r. Ony sh ko ’s Cla im

Acc ordingto Mr. Ony shko, he is the sole shar eholder of an e ntity

called V entura International L td. that deposited roug hly $70,000 (Canadia

n) at Eur ofed in 1998 “ and/or 1999.” Statement of Claim of Ventura International L td. & Me rvin Michae lson Ony shko ¶ 3. B y Mr. Ony shko’s own admission, he “ha s lost his rec ords of such de posits and the exact amount there of” a nd thus cannot point to any evidenc e whatsoever to support his cla im ag ainst the defe ndant assets. I d. ¶ 4. He there fore cannot de monstrate his standingto contest the pending forf eiture a ction.14 (c ) T he Pos tle s’ Cla im Alan Mar k Postl es and Jacqueline Postles state that they place d $105,000 in a sp e c if ie d a c c ount at E ur of

e d in 19 99 . Se e Pos tle s’ Cla im ¶ 1. Atta c he d to the ir

c la im l e tte r i s a second le tter, this one from a Mr. Vladimir Ivanov, who thanks the Postl es for openingan acc ount at Eurofe d. See id., Ex. 1. W hile the Postles may well have had an a ccount at Eurofe d, they have pr oduced no e vidence showing the amount of funds in that a ccount or sug g esting that the a c c ount r e ma ine d o pe n at th e tim e of the ba nk ’s liq uid atio n. Thus , th e y , to o, have fa ile d to provide e vidence of a c og nizable interest suffic ient to support statutory standing . In light of that failure , their cla im, like those of Mr. Ony shko and Mr. Munro, must be r ejec ted. (d ) M s. Col la zo’ s Cl a im Ms. Col la zo c la ims that sh e pla c e d $ 13 6, 91 4 in a sp e c if ie d a c c ount at E ur o f e d p r io r to it s li qu id ati o n . Se e Cl a im o f M ar ia d e L o s A n g e le s Co ll a zo G ar c ia ( “ Co ll a zo Claim”) ¶ 8. She ha s alrea dy rec overe d $100,000 of that amount fr om the funds re serve d for third-par ty depositors by

the bank’ s liquidators, id. ¶ 2, but claims that the remaining$36,914 “wa s transfe rre d or mix ed with the asse t of this case.” I d. ¶ 4.

Th e unnumbe re d e xhibi ts atta c he d to Ms. Col la zo’ s st ate me nt o f c la im d o s ug g e st that Ms. Coll azo did in fact have an ac count with Eurofe d with a closingbalanc e of $136,914 at the tim e of

liq uid iatio n. Th e Un ite d St ate s urg e s th at e ve n th is s ho wi ngis i ns uf fi c ie nt t o establish a question of f

act r eg ardingMs. Coll azo’s interest in the def endant a ssets, beca

use the Eurofe d assets at issue in this suit are those he ld for L azare nko or his associate s, not for other
cre ditors of the bank. See Mot. at 24-26. B ut this arg ument raises pote ntial leg al questions that the Court is unprepar ed to answe r in the abse nce of an opposition to the United States’ motion.15

As a re sult, since Ms. Coll azo’s claim is disposed of on other grounds in this Opinion, see su pra at 6- 9, the Court

do e s n ot r

ule on thi s a sp e c t of

the Un ite d St ate s’ mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt.
I I I . CONCLUSI ON For the re asons set for

th in this Opinion, the Court issued an Orde r on September 30, 2009, in which it gr anted the motion to strike the cla ims of Ms. Col lazo, Mr. Munro, Mr. Ony sh ko and

the Pos tle s. I t a lso or de re d s umm ary jud g me nt e nte re d f

or the Un ite d St ate s a s to the claims of Mr. Munr o, Mr. Ony shko and the Postles. The individual claimants ar e advise d that th e Se pte mbe r 3 0, 20 09 Or de r, a s ame nd e d b y se pa ra te Or de r i ssu e d to da

y , d isp os e s o f t

he ir claims in this li tigation. /s/_________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: Oc tober 20, 2009