United States District Court

Southern District of Ohio

Western Division

United States,

Plaintiff,

v.

Serghei Verlan,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cr-109 (2)

District Judge Douglas R. Cole 

Defendant Verlan’s Memorandum in Opposition to the Government’s Motion to Apply 

Monies Held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for Payment of Restitution Judgment

The United States has filed a motion seeking to apply funds which were seized from Mr. 

Verlan as partial payment of any restitution which he may ultimately owe in this case. (Doc. 283) 

As argued below, Mr. Verlan submits that the government’s motion is premature and the statute 

which it relies upon is inapplicable at this time given the procedural posture of this case.

Memorandum in Opposition

The government bases its motion upon 18 U.S.C. § 3613 - “Civil remedies for satisfaction 

of an unpaid fine” and specifically subsection (a) which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

1

Enforcement.--The United States may enforce a judgment imposing a fine in 

accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil 

judgment under Federal law or State law. Notwithstanding any other Federal law

(including section 207 of the Social Security Act), a judgment imposing a fine may 

be enforced against all property or rights to property of the person fined ...

1 Subsection (f) of that statute later similarly extends the authority granted in that section to “... the enforcement of 

an order of restitution.” 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 284 Filed: 02/22/23 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 2028
2

The government further relies upon § 3613(c) for the proposition that, “Once the Court enters 

judgment in a criminal case, a lien arises in favor of the United States against all of a Defendant’s 

real and personal property.” (Doc. 283, p. 2) But therein lies the rub. No such order or judgment 

has yet been issued in this case. This Court docketed its judgment in this case on December 19, 

2022. (Doc. 279) That judgment imposed neither a fine nor an order of restitution. While a

subsequent order may change that posture, the prospective likelihood of a future act does not grant

authority beyond that granted by the plain language of a statute.

Section § 3613, and the authority it confers upon the government, is predicated upon the 

existence of duly executed order of judgment for payment of either a fine or restitution. No such 

judgment currently exists in this case. The government’s position as to what is “anticipated” is 

not relevant. Were that the case, the government could assert its lien upon the filing of an 

indictment based upon its anticipation that a conviction and order of judgment were sure to be 

forthcoming. Such a result is contrary to the plain language of the statute.

Wherefore, Mr. Verlan respectively requests that the government’s motion be denied at 

this time.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul M. Laufman (0066667)

LAUFMAN NAPOLITANO, LLC

4310 Hunt Road

Cincinnati, OH 45242

(513) 621-4556

(513) 621-5563 Fax

plaufman@LN-lawfirm.com

Counsel for Defendant Serghei Verlan

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 284 Filed: 02/22/23 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 2029
3

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was electronically filed on the 22nd

day of February 2023. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered 

an appearance by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing 

through the Court’s electronic filing system. 

Paul M. Laufman

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 284 Filed: 02/22/23 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 2030