Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 8
 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 

 Plaintiff, 

 -vALL ASSETS OF ASA DRUGS, INCLUDING 

$207,644.00 IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY ON DEPOSIT AT JP MORGAN 07 CV 3587 

CHASE, IN ACCOUNT NUMBER (MGC) 

****1 865; 

ALL ASSETS OF NASH PHARMACY, 

INCLUDING $1,492,892.00 IN UNITED STATES DECLARATION IN 

CURRENCY ON DEPOSIT AT JP MORGAN SUPPORT OF 

CHASE, IN ACCOUNT NUMBER MOTION FOR 

 4 365; STAY 

ALL ASSETS OF STAY SLIM PHARMACY, 

INCLUDING $128,534.00 IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY ON DEPOSIT AT JP MORGAN 

CHASE, IN ACCOUNT NUMBER 

** **6 065; 

 Defendants-in-rem. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 

 DAVID E. RUCK, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of this 

State and in this Court, under penalty of perjury, hereby declares: 

1. I am counsel for claimant Muhammad Nawaz Ahmad. I also represent Mr. 

Ahmad in connection with criminal proceedings against him in United States v. 

Muhammad Ejaz Ahmad, et. al, 06 Cr. 1135 (JGK). 

2. I am submitting this declaration in support of Mr. Ahmad’s motion pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 981(g)(2) to stay the civil forfeiture proceeding pending the final 

resolution of the criminal case on the ground that continuation of the forfeiture 

Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 3 of 8
 2

proceeding will burden the right of Mr. Ahmad against self-incrimination in the 

related criminal case. 

3. Mr. Ahmad was indicted on December 12, 2006, and charged with various 

offenses relating to his conduct in connection with two pharmacies of which he is 

the co-owner, ASA Drugs, Inc. and Stay Slim Pharmacy, Inc.-- conspiracy to pay 

illegal kickbacks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to commit health 

care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and aggravated identity theft in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. 

4. The indictment contained a criminal forfeiture allegation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

982(a)(7); the allegation charged that, as a result of committing these offenses, all 

property that constitutes or is derived from gross proceeds traceable to the 

commission of the offenses was forfeitable, and specifically identified the 

contents of the two Chase accounts held in the name of ASA Drugs and Stay Slim 

Pharmacy that are identified in the civil forfeiture complaint. 

5. On February 9, 2007, the Government moved for a restraining order, pursuant to 

21 U.S.C. § 853(c), with respect to the contents of the three bank accounts 

identified in the indictment. (While the contents of these bank accounts were 

frozen by JP Morgan Chase “at the Government’s request” in September, 2006 

(Letter of AUSA William Harrington to Judge Koeltl, dated May 4, 2007, in 06 

Cr.1135), the Government did not seek judicial authorization for the seizure until 

February 9, 2007, when it moved for the restraining order.) 

6. Mr. Ahmad submitted opposition to the application for the restraining order, 

(arguing, inter alia, that there was no probable cause to believe that the contents 

Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 4 of 8
 3

of the ASA Drugs and Stay Slim Pharmacy accounts were traceable to proceeds 

of the charged offenses). Alternatively, Mr. Ahmad argued that he should be 

permitted to use the funds in the accounts for ordinary expenses and for the 

payment of taxes. He also moved for particulars regarding the specific amount 

allegedly subject to forfeiture. 

7. On May 4, 2007, the Government withdrew its application for the post-indictment 

retraining order in the criminal case, filed a bill of particulars in which it asserted 

that it “does not intend to seek the criminal forfeiture of” the pharmacy bank 

accounts, and filed the instant in rem civil forfeiture complaint in which it 

identified “all assets” of the pharmacies including the above-referenced bank 

accounts. On May 7, 2007, the Government submitted a request to this Court for 

an “Arrest Warrant In Rem for the Defendant Property”, asserting that the facts 

set forth in the Verified Complaint demonstrate probable cause to seize the bank 

accounts. (In a letter accompanying this application dated May 7, 2007, AUSA 

Christine Meding claimed that the Government had not yet seized the bank 

accounts that are the subject of this civil action; this claim contradicted the 

assertion made by AUSA William Harrington to Judge Koeltl three days earlier 

that the accounts had been frozen by the bank at the government’s request in 

September, 2006, and justifying the seizure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

981(b)(2)(B)(ii) and United States v. Daccarett, 6 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1993)). 

8. In the May 4, 2007 letter to Judge Koeltl in the criminal case explaining the 

Government’s actions, AUSA William Harrington explained that “the forfeiture 

of the Pharmacy Accounts (and potentially, the pharmacies themselves) would be 

Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 5 of 8
 4

more appropriately pursued as a civil forfeiture action, as opposed to a criminal 

forfeiture action” because (in addition to pursuing the forfeiture of the accounts as 

proceeds of the offenses alleged in the indictment), the government believed the 

accounts were forfeitable as “property involved in money laundering 

transactions.” Though the Government advised that it might decide to supersede 

the indictment and add money-laundering charges, it explained that, “at the 

current time it believes that the money laundering aspect of the investigation is 

better suited to a civil money laundering forfeiture action, due to the dual 

ownership of the pharmacies and the Pharmacy Accounts.” AUSA Harrington 

explained that the Stay Slim and ASA Drugs accounts were co-owned by 

Muhammad Nawaz Ahmad and Sobia Shaheen; Ms. Shaheen was not charged in 

the criminal case, and would have the opportunity to challenge the forfeiture 

and/or any restraint only in a civil forfeiture proceeding. (Letter of AUSA 

William Harrington to Judge Koeltl, dated May 4, 2007, p. 3) 

9. At the same time, however, AUSA Harrington noted that “because the factual 

underpinning of the civil forfeiture case implicates some of the same facts and 

issues in the criminal case, the Government, the defendants, or Sobia Shaheen 

may seek a stay or a protective order in the civil forfeiture case pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 981(g)”. ((Letter of AUSA William Harrington to Judge Koeltl, dated 

May 4, 2007, in 06 Cr.1135, p. 3 n. 3) 

10. AUSA Harrington anticipated the dilemma Mr. Ahmad now faces by virtue of 

the parallel civil forfeiture and criminal proceedings: a desire to answer the civil 

complaint, to testify in the civil case, and to litigate the civil case fully while at 

Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 6 of 8
 5

the same time protecting his privilege against self-incrimination in the criminal 

case. 

11. In United States v. 4003-4005 5th Ave., 55 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 1995), the Second 

Circuit recognized that, when there are ongoing criminal proceedings, civil 

forfeiture proceedings may raise troublesome legal issues -- particularly with 

respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Circuit 

instructed that, upon an appropriate motion, should make special efforts to 

accommodate both the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination as well 

as the legislative intent behind the forfeiture provision, and, in doing so, recognize 

that the government (the plaintiff in the civil action) is the party in control of the 

criminal proceedings. 

12. While the Court noted that a district court is not required to stay the civil action 

while a claimant seeks to resolve a parallel criminal action or enter a protective 

order which would keep a claimant’s testimony from being used in any other 

proceeding, it held, “Nevertheless, when a claimant validly invokes the Fifth 

Amendment and expeditiously seeks the court’s help in protecting his interests, 

the court must explore the feasibility and fairness of accommodations of this 

sort.” (55 F.3d at n.4) 

13. Given the pending criminal prosecution based on the same alleged illegal 

behavior that allegedly supports the civil forfeiture, the still pending criminal 

forfeiture allegations, and the acknowledgement by the Government that the 

criminal indictment may yet be superceded to add money laundering charges, Mr. 

Ahmad has an acute interest in not incriminating himself through responsive 

Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 8 of 8