IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 3:18CR022 

 Plaintiff, : Judge Thomas M. Rose 

v. : 

LEONARD WOLF TARGINO (1), : 

DIEGO M. DACOSTA (2), : 

RICARDO CARLOS DE ANDRADE (3), : 

SANDRO LOPES TRANCOSO DA SILVA (4), : 

Defendants. : 

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE 

 Upon the United States’ Motion for Final Order of Forfeiture and the Court’s review of the 

record, the Court HEREBY FINDS THAT: 

The Court has entered preliminary orders of forfeiture as to each defendant, finding that 

certain property (collectively, the “subject property”) had been forfeited to the United States under 

18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(B), and/or 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1029(c)(1)(C): 

 Apple iPhone white/gold with clear case recovered from Targino; 

 Apple iPhone, black with a gold case recovered from Dacosta; 

 Apple iPhone, black, shattered recovered from De Andrade; 

 Apple iPhone black, with clear case with SIM card lodged inside clear case recovered 

from Da Silva; 

 HP Laptop, Serial No. CND6306CXR; 

 Pin Hole Camera containing a SanDisk Ultra Plus, 32GB; 

 T Mobile Sim Card, Serial No. 8901260142705280457; 

 Vivo 4G Sim Card, Serial No. 8955109334; 

 T-Mobile Sim Card, Serial No. 8901260911795426125; 

 MSR Card Reader, Serial No. A517052440; 
2 

 HP Laptop, Serial No. CND7194DT9; 

 T-Mobile Sim Card, Serial No. 8901260985775565193; 

 Card Reader, Serial No. US01421F15; 

 Vivo 4G Sim Card, Serial No. 8955109314; 

 Vivo 4G Sim Card, Serial No. 8955109344; 

 T Mobile Sim Card, Serial No. 8901260911795425994; and 

 Lenovo Laptop, Serial No. PFOLLTTB. 

The Court also found that the defendants had an interest in certain property and directed 

the United States to seize the property and to give notice of its intent to forfeit the property. 

The United States gave electronic notice through the CM/ECF notification system of the 

motions for preliminary order of forfeiture to counsel for each defendant, and the defendants did 

not object to the forfeiture. 

On November 2, 2018, the Court held defendant Dacosta’s sentencing hearing. The 

Judgment establishes that the defendant shall forfeit certain property to the United States. 

On November 30, 2018, the Court held defendant Targino’s sentencing hearing and 

announced the forfeiture of property. The Judgment establishes that the defendant shall forfeit 

certain property to the United States. 

On November 30, 2018, the Court held defendant De Andrade’s sentencing hearing and 

announced the forfeiture of property. The Judgment establishes that the defendant shall forfeit 

certain property to the United States. 

On January 30, 2019, the Court held defendant Da Silva’s sentencing hearing and 

announced the forfeiture of property. The Judgment establishes that the defendant shall forfeit 

certain property to the United States. 

The United States published notice of this forfeiture action and of its intent to dispose of 

the subject property in accordance with the law on an official internet government forfeiture site 

(www.forfeiture.gov) for at least 30 consecutive days. 
3 

The United States did not send direct written notice of the preliminary orders of forfeiture 

because no person or entity reasonably appeared to be a potential claimant with standing to contest 

the forfeiture of the subject property in the ancillary proceeding. 

No person or entity has filed a timely petition with the Court asserting any interest in the 

subject property or objecting to its proposed forfeiture. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. All right, title, and interest in the subject property is condemned and forfeited to the 

United States under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(B), 

and/or 18 U.S.C. § 1029(c)(1)(C), and no right, title, or interest shall remain in any other person 

or entity. 

2. The United States shall dispose of the subject property in accordance with the law. 

3. The United States District Court shall retain jurisdiction in the case for the purpose 

of enforcing this Final Order of Forfeiture. 

SO ORDERED: 

Dated: October 29, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 __________________________________________ 

THOMAS M. ROSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE