UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TWO GENERAL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT 

ENGINES, WITH ENGINE SERIAL 

NUMBERS 695244 AND 705112, 

AND ALL RECORDS PERTAINING 

THERETO 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 14-2213 {GK) 

Memorandum Opinion and Order 

I . Background 

This case began on December 30, 2014, when the United States 

filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in· Rem against two 

General Electric aircraft engines with engine serial numbers 

695244 and 705112 (the "Defendant Engines"). See Unopposed Order 

to Repatriate the Defendant Properties ("Repatriation Order") 

[Dkt. No. 32] (describing the history of this case). At the time 

of the Government's Complaint, these engines were located in 

Antalya, Turkey. Id. 

Subsequently, Evans Meridians, Ltd. ("Evans," "Claimant") , 

filed a verified claim to the Defendant Engines.. Id. After filing 

this claim, and unbeknownst to the Court or the Government, Evans 

1 
transported the Defendant Engines from Turkey to Shanghai, China, 

on or about July 27, 2015. Id. 

In response, and pursuant to the Government's Motion for Order 

to Repatriate, [Dkt. No. 31], on January 27, 2016, the Court 

ordered Evans to either repatriate the Defendant Engines to the 

United States or post a bond of $6,000,000 by March 31, 2016. 

Repatriation Order. To date, Evans has done neither. 1 

Accordingly, the Government filed a Motion for Order to Show 

Cause why Evans should not be held in contempt for violating the 

Repatriation Order. Mot. for Order to Show Cause [Dkt. No. 41]. 

The Court granted the Government's Motion, scheduled a contempt 

hearing, and ordered that Evans' director or another 

representative with authority to direct the affairs of the 

corporation attend. Order ("Show Cause Order") [Dkt. No. 47]. 

On October 24, 2016, the contempt hearing was held. Pursuant 

to the Court's Show Cause Order, Eugeny Bespalov, an attorney from 

Russia with a power of attorney to bind Evans, attended and 

testified. 

1 Evans' counsel candidly admits that Evans has not complied with 

the Court's Repatriation Order. Response to Mot. for Order to 

Show Cause ("Response") at p. 3-4 [Dkt. No. 44]; Unofficial 

Transcript of Show Cause Hearing ("Unofficial Transcript") at p. 

17 ~~ 9-10. An unofficial transcript of the Show Cause Hearing 

was prepared by the Court Reporter and will be filed on ECF. 

2 
' > 

II. Legal Standard 

"The Court has both an inherent and a statutory power to 

enforce compliance with its orders and may exercise that authority 

through a civil contempt proceeding." SEC v. Bankers Alliance, 

Corp., 881 F. Supp. 673, 678 (D.D.C. 1995) (citing inter alia 

Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); United 

States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 330-32 

(1947); 18 u.s.c. § 401). "A party commits contempt when it 

violates a definite and specific court order requiring him to 

perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with 

knowledge of that order." Id. (internal citations and quotations 

omitted). 

"[T]he moving party has the burden of showing by clear and 

convincing evidence that (1) a court order was in effect, (2) the 

order required certain conduct by the respondent, and ( 3) the 

respondent failed to comply with the court's order." Id. The 

respondent "may assert a present inability to comply with the order 

in question" as an affirmative defense, but in doing so, has the 

burden of production. U.S. v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983); 

Tinsely v. Mitchell, 804 F.2d 1254, 1256 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 

("impossibility of performance constitutes a defense to a charge 

of contempt"). To meet this burden, the respondent "must 

demonstrate his inability to comply categorically and in detail." 

3 
Bankers Alliance, 881 F. Supp. At 678; SEC v. Showalter, 227 F. 

Supp. 2d 110, 120 (D.D.C. 2002) (defendant cannot merely assert 

inability, but must "establish that she has made ... all reasonable 

efforts" to comply (emphasis added)). 

Even if the respondent cannot demonstrate that she is unable 

to comply with the court's order, the court is required to consider 

her "good-faith efforts to comply with [the] order in mitigation 

of any penalty" the court might impose. Tinsely, 804 F. 2d at 1256. 

"To show good faith, the [respondent's] duty includes the 

obligation to be reasonably diligent and energetic in attempting 

to comply with [the] court's order, and to pay what he can toward 

the judgment." Showalter, 227 F. Supp. 2d at 120. A respondent 

attempting to demonstrate that she has acted in good faith to 

comply must provide "adequate detailed proof." Id. 

Civil contempt is a remedial device, utilized to achieve 

compliance with a court's order. Id. Therefore, the sanction 

imposed is designed to secure compliance, not to punish. Bankers 

Alliance, 881 F. Supp. at 678; United Mine Workers of America, 330 

U.S. at 304 (the sanction imposed may be employed "to coerce the 

defendant into compliance with the court's order"). 

4 
III. Analysis 

A. Evans Is in Contempt of the Repatriation Order 

Here, there is no question that Evans has failed to comply 

with the Court's Repatriation Order, as Evans readily conceded 

that it has not. Response at p. 3-4; Unofficial Transcript of 

Show Cause Hearing ("Unofficial Transcript") at p. 17 ~~ 9-10. 

Instead, Evans raises two arguments as to why the Court should not 

hold it in contempt. 

First, Evans argues that it is impossible to comply with 

either prong of the Court's Order. Response at 5-6. Evans 

forthrightly admitted that it has produced no evidence, 

whatsoever, demonstrating that it is unable to either repatriate 

the engines or post a $6,000,000 bond. Id.; Unofficial Transcript 

at p. 18 ~~ 3-10. Consequently, as Evans has not produced even 

one shred of evidence in support of its argument that it is unable 

to comply with the Court's Repatriation Order, it is obvious that 

Evans cannot meet its burden to demonstrate impossibility. 2 

Second, Evans argues that it is making good faith efforts to 

comply with the Repatriation Order. Response at 7. In support of 

2 The only evidence presented at the Show Cause Hearing was the 

testimony of Mr. Bespalov. When asked what assets Evans has, 

information that would be necessary for the Court to determine 

whether Evans has the ability to comply with the Repatriation 

Order, Mr. Bespalov stated that he did not have any information 

regarding Evans' assets. Unofficial Transcript at p. 44 ~ 4. 

5 
this argument, Evans asserts that it has an ownership interest in 

an entirely different set of engines that are located in Miami 

(the "Miami Engines") and that it is currently attempting use its 

stake in those engines to meet the terms of the Repatriation Order. 

Id. The Government responds that the Miami Engines have nothing 

to do with this case and argues that Evans' conduct regarding 

those engines does not constitute a good faith effort to comply 

with the Repatriation Order. Reply to Mot. for Order to Show Cause 

("Reply") at 3-4. 

The Court agrees with the Government. Taken at face value, 

Evans' offer is not a concrete step towards compliance with the 

Court's Repatriation Order, but a mere proposal with an uncertain 

chance of success. Evans asserts that it can sell the Miami 

Engines, and use the funds to pay some indeterminate portion of 

the $6,000,000 bond, or alternatively, post the Miami Engines 

themselves as substitute collateral for the $6,000,000 bond. Yet, 

by Evans' owns admission, it lacks physical possession of the Miami 

Engines, and the third party that does have possession of them has 

some sort of monetary claim against Evans which clouds Evans' title 

to them. 

Thus, Evans presently lacks the ability to either sell the 

Miami Engines or post them as substitute collateral, and it is 

wholly uncertain whether Evans will ever have the ability to do 

6 
so. All Evans has is a questionable plan for future action. That 

plan does not constitute an effort at compliance, but is at best, 

a proposal to make future efforts that, if successful, might 

produce assets that would then enable Evans to make a good faith 

effort at compliance. 

Indeed, when Evans' conduct is viewed in its entirety, it is 

abundantly clear that it has not met its burden to demonstrate 

that it made "all reasonable efforts to comply" with the Court's 

Repatriation Order. Showalter at 120. A showing of good-faith 

efforts by a contemnor requires her to bring forward evidence of 

her ability to comply, so that the court may evaluate the efforts 

she has actually made against those she had the capability to make. 

Here, Evans' refusal to put forward such evidence dooms its 

argument that it is making good faith efforts, just as surely as 

it doomed its argument of impossibility. 

Because Evans has failed to present any evidence of how much 

it would cost to repatriate the Defendant Engines or what assets 

Evans holds, the Court cannot conclude that Evans made all 

reasonable efforts to repatriate the Defendant Engines. 

Similarly, the absence of any evidence of Evans' financial state 

makes it impossible for the Court to conclude that Evans has done 

all it reasonably can to post the $6,000,000 bond. To show good 

faith, Evans must demonstrate that it is "paying what [it] can." 

7 

' ) 
Showalter at 120. Yet, the Court has no way of knowing what Evans 

"can" pay. 

The sole piece of evidence before the Court is the testimony 

of Mr. Bespalov. However, he failed to identify any steps that 

Evans has taken to repatriate the Defendant Engines to the United 

States beyond a single inquiry to the Chinese company that 

! 

,- allegedly possesses them, asking for their return. Unofficial 

Transcript at p. 46 ~~ 17-20. Given the absence of meaningful 

evidence, the Court does not consider Evans' single request to 

have the Defendant Engines returned a reasonable effort at 

compliance. 

In sum, Evans has failed to present any evidence showing that 

it was "reasonably diligent and energetic in attempting to comply 

with this [C]ourt's order." Id. Therefore, the Court holds that 

Evans has not made a good faith effort to comply with the 

Repatriation Order. As Evans admits that it has failed to comply 

with the Repatriation Order and has failed to offer any evidence 

suggesting that it is unable to comply or has made a good faith 

effort to do so, the Court finds Evans in civil contempt. 

B. The Goverrunent's Proposed Sanction is Appropriate 

The Court now turns to the question of what sanction would be 

sufficient to coerce Evans to comply with the Repatriation Order. 

United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. at 304. At the Show Cause 

8 
Hearing, the Government sought a sanction of $15,000 per day until 

Evans complies with the Repatriation Order. 

In determining what constitutes an effectively coercive 

sanction, the court "consider[s] the character and magnitude of 

the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable 

effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the 

result desired. /1 Id. In doing so, the court "consider [s] the 

amount of [the contemnor 1 s] financial resources and the consequent 

seriousness of the burden to that particular [contemnor] . /1 Id. 

Where, as here, "the contemnor is the only one who possess the 

relevant financial information, and chooses not to disclose it, 11 

the Court's inability to consider the contemnor 1 s financial 

resources is not a bar to imposing sanctions. See Richmark Corp. 

v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1481-82 (9th Cir. 

1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

In this case, the harm created by Evans 1 continuing failure 

to repatriate the Defendant Engines is substantial. The 

Government's Complaint alleges that the Defendant Engines were 

destined for Iran, and more specifically, the Islamic 

Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, a designated Foreign 

Terrorist Organization. See Complaint. If correct, each day that 

the Defendant Engines remain outside the United States increases 

9 
the risk that they will arrive at their intended destination, and 

thereby benefit a hostile organization. 

In addition, the Government's proposed sanction of $15, 000 

per day appears reasonably calculated to coerce compliance with 

the Repatriation Order. If Evans were to refuse to comply for one 

year, the sanction would total roughly $5.5 million dollars. This 

amount is less than the $6,000,000 bond contained in the 

Repatriation Order and falls between the disputed estimated values 

of the Defendant Engines. See Response at 2, 4 n.3 (noting that 

Evans values the engines at roughly $4,000,000, while the 

Government likely values them at roughly $6,000,000). Therefore, 

to the extent that Evans has any assets, which remains an open 

question, the proposed sanction presents Evans with the choice of 

repatriating Defendant Engines within a year or risk forfeiting 

assets roughly equivalent to the value of Defendant Engines. 

Thus, the Government's proposed sanction is reasonably 

calculated to coerce Evans' compliance with the Repatriation 

Order. 3 

3 A sanction of roughly equivalent size was held reasonable under 

similar circumstances. See Richmark, 959 F. 2d 1468 (upholding 

sanction of $10, 000 per day against a foreign defendant who refused 

to provide information about its assets) 

10 
.:-. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds Claimant Evans 

Meridian in civil contempt of its Repatriation Order, and imposes 

a sanction of $15, 000 per day until Evans complies with the 

Repatriation Order. It is hereby 

ORDERED, that Evans Meridians, Ltd. , shall be held in contempt 

of Court for violating the Repatriation Order; and it is further 

ORDERED, that the Court shall sanction Evans Meridians, Ltd., 

by requiring that it pay a fine of $15,000 per day, from the day 

this Order issues until it complies with the Repatriation Order, 

to the Registry of the Court. 

GladySK:Sler 

November 2, 2016 United States District Judge 

Copies via ECF to all counsel of record 

11