UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KURT S. MOYLAN,

Claimant-Appellant,

and

$3,000IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY;

$27,550.58FROM FIRST VIRGINIA BANK

ACCOUNT #11654813,IN THE NAME OF

IHEDINACHI I. UZODINMA; $262,300.62

FROM NATIONSBANK OF VIRGINIA

ACCOUNT #94229017,IN THE NAME OF

IHEDI IBE UZODINMA; $346,911.32FROM

No. 96-1181

SIGNET BANK ACCOUNT #6281 8451

95,IN THE NAME OF IHEDI UZODINMA;

$639,365.02FROM THE THIRD FEDERAL

SAVINGS & LOAN ACCOUNT

#114048093,IN THE NAME OF IHEDI I.

UZODINMA; $5,000FROM THE KEMPER

HIGH YIELD FUND ACCOUNT

#8009205299-4,IN THE NAME OF IHEDI

UZODINMA; $7,001.05FROM BANK ONE

ACCOUNT #1883980847,IN THE NAME

OF EKWI UZODINMA,

Defendants,

IHEDINACHI I. UZODINMA; C. VICTOR

MBAKPUO,

Claimants.
Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-95-607-A)

Argued: October 28, 1996

Decided: December 4, 1996

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Charles Samuel Leeper, SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Gordon Dean Kromberg,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Karl N. Metzner, SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH,

Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States

Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Laury Gordon, Trial Attorney, Money Laundering Section, Criminal Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Kurt Moylan was the "victim" of an elaborate scam by

two individuals, Okafor and Uzodinma. The details of the scheme in

 2
which Okafor and Uzodinma defrauded Moylan of $1.3 million dollars are set forth in full in the district court opinion. See United States

v. $3,000 in cash, 906 F. Supp. 1061 (E.D. Va. 1995). Essentially,

Okafor convinced Moylan that the new Nigerian government needed

a false construction invoice in order to obtain twenty million dollars

that had been earmarked in a construction project by the prior Nigerian government for payment to a foreign firm. Okafor promised that

Moylan could retain for himself forty percent of this $20 million in

return for providing a false invoice from Moylan's construction corporation, Home Financial Corporation. Moylan provided Okafor a falsified invoice, as well as Home Financial Corporation's corporate

seal, for purposes of completing the transaction. Moylan was later

requested to front $1.3 million in "administrative fees." At Okafor's

request, Moylan transferred the $1.3 million to Uzodinma, an "official

Nigerian money exchanger."

When Moylan eventually became suspicious that the entire transaction was a sham and that Okafor and Uzodinma were attempting to

swindle him, he contacted the FBI. In the course of the ensuing investigation, the government seized and sought forfeiture of the $1.3 million -- which was seized from Uzodinma's various bank accounts --

on a variety of grounds including the theory that Uzodinma, Okafor,

and Moylan had collectively engaged in various acts of wire fraud

and money laundering in the course of attempting to consummate

their proposed transaction. At the forfeiture hearing, the district court

dismissed Moylan's claim to the money for lack of standing.

Moylan argues that the district court erred on several grounds in

dismissing his claim for lack of standing. First, Moylan claims that

despite having wired the $1.3 million to Uzodinma, he still retained

legal title to the funds because Uzodinma falsely represented himself

to be a Nigerian money exchanger. Second, Moylan argues that the

district court erred in declining to hold (because Moylan had unclean

hands) that Moylan was the beneficiary of a constructive trust. Moylan asserts that his hands were "clean" because he did not have a subjective intent to defraud anyone and believed that Okafor's entire

proposed transaction was legal. Lastly, Moylan argues that this circuit's decision in United States v. Reckmeyer, 836 F.2d 200, 205-06

(4th Cir. 1987), affords him standing to contest the forfeiture as a gen-

 3
eral creditor, since he can trace to Uzodinma's estate the $1.3 million

in which he believes he has an interest.

Having carefully reviewed the record, briefs, and contentions of the

parties at oral argument, we can find no error in the district court

opinion. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court on the

opinion of that court.

AFFIRMED

 4