FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 6, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1038 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 20 52 6- CV-FAM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us $125 , 938. 62 Pr oc ee ds o f ce rt if

ic at es of de posi t nu m be r 12 71 73 47 30 , $60, 851. 73 nu m be r 12 71 73 63 29 , et al ., Defen da nt s, ARNOLDO JOSE ALEMAN CARDENAL, ANA EUG ENIA FLORES, JOSE GRULLON, NORMA L. FLORES, MARIA ALEJANDRA ALEMAN CARDENAL, CARLOS MI GUEL AL EMAN CARDENAL, MARIA DOLORES ALEMAN CARDENAL, Cl ai m an ts -Ap pe ll an ts .Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby desig nation. 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 6, 200 8) Before TJO FL AT and BL ACK , C ircuit Judg es, and REST AN I, Judge. * BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e: In this civil forfeiture ac tion b rought u nder the Civil Asset Forf eiture Reform Ac t of 2000 (CAFR

A) , 18 U .S .C. § 983, the district court foundseven certific ates of deposit held in the nam es of Claim ant-Appellants Maria Alej andra Alem án, N orm a Flores, José Grullon, and A na Flores w ere subject to forf eiture unde r 18 U
. S. C. § 98 1( a) (1 )( B) be ca use the y w er e de ri ve d f

ro m f unds sto le n f

ro m the N ic ar ag uan tr ea sur

y dur ing the pr es ide nc y

of A rn old o A le m án
. O n a ppe al , Appe llants c ont en d th e G ove rn m en t f ai le d to m ee t i ts b ur de n of lin kin g th e ce rt if

ic at es of de posi t t o e m

be zz le d f unds
. A lth oughthe G ove rn m en t
nowc onc ed es that ke y

e vid en ce on whic h it

r el ie d at tri al w as ina dm iss ibl e, it asserts the properly

adm itted evidence was suff icient to sho w, by

a preponderance of the e vid en ce , that the f

unds are sub

j ec t t o f or fe iture . H av ing r ev ie w ed the3

en tir e re co rd , w e af

fi rm the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt w ithr es pe ct to
ce rt if ic at es num

be r 1275 2185 28 and 1 2636 0452 8 be ca use the e vid en ce pr ope rl y presented to the court with respect to those funds was m inim ally sufficient to m eet the G ove rn m en t’ s burd enof pr oof
. H ow ev er , be ca

use the G ove rn m en t f

ai le d a s a
m atter of law to m eet its burden of proving by a preponderance of

the evidence that c er tif ic at es num

be r 1271 7343 0, 125 6700 028, 127 9734 728, 127 1734 729, and 1 2 7 1 7 3 7 1 2 9 we r e d e r i v e df r o m fu n d s e mb e z z l e df

r o m th e Ni c ar a g u antr e a s u ry,
we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er o f fo rfei tu re wi th res pe ctto th os e cer ti fic at es . I. BACKGROUND A
. T he Ce rti fic ates of D ep osi t During the late 1990s, while A rnoldo Alem án wa s President of N icara gua,
m ill ion s of

dol lars dis ap pe ar ed

f ro m the N ic ar ag uan natio na l tre as ur y . A ro und the
sam e tim e, By

ron Jerez, a fr iend of the Alem án fam ily and a high-ranking o fficial
worki ng in th e Nic arag ua n Tre as ury Depa rtment, wi th dr ew fu nd s fr om two
en tit ie s, Co nsul tor es Co rp or at ivo s ( a co m pany w ithw hic h he w as a ff

ili at ed ) an d th e Nic arag ua n Dem oc rat ic Fo un da ti on (of whi ch he was afou nd in g m em be r). Jerez used the m oney

to purchase certif

icates of deposit from

Te rrabank in Coral G ab le s, F lor ida , in the nam e of A le m ánand s ev er al of

his r el at ive s. A le m ánand hi s wi fe al so op en edsev eral cert ifi cat es of d ep os itat Terrab an k dur in g t hi s p eri od
.Th e Go ve rnme nt l ate r a ba nd on e d it s c la im w ithre sp e c t to on e of the c e rt if ic ate s, 1 leavingonly

seven at issue in this action. 4 So m e of the se c er tif ic at es of de posi t w er e late r as sig ne d to oth er m em be rs of the Alem án fam il y . InMarc h 20 03, the U nit ed S tate s G ove rn m en t f

ile d ac ivi l f

or fe iture a ct ion in the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida , c ont en din g that eight of the Ter

rabank certificates of deposit wer e subjec t to forfeiture be ca use the y w er e de ri ve d f

ro m f unds sto le n f

ro m the N ic ar ag uan tr ea sur

y . T he 1 chart below summ arize s the relevant details of eac h certificate at issue in this case:

Cer t i f i ca t e N o. Amoun t O pen ed Or i g i n al O wn er Pr es en t O wn er Pur ch as ed by Fu n ds f r om 127173430 $100, 000 4/ 17/ 98 Ar n ol do or M a ria A l ejand ra A l emán M a ria

A l ejand ra A l emán B y r on Jer ez N i car agu an D e m o c ra tic F o u n d a tio n
1256700028 $75, 000 3/ 6/ 98 Ar n ol do or A m e lia A l emán N o rma Flores A rnoldo and A m el i a A l em án M i l ers t o ne

B usiness
1279734728 $100, 000 4/ 17/ 98 Ar n ol do Al emá n or Car l os A l em án Jos é G r ul l on B y r on Jer ez N i car agu an D e m o c ra tic Fou n dat i on
1271734729 $100, 000 4/ 17/ 98 Ar n ol do Al emá n or Ar n ol do Jo sé A l em án A na Fl ores B y r on Jer ez N i car agu an D e m o c ra tic Fou n dat i on

1271737129 $75, 000 5/ 26/ 98 Ar n ol do Al emá n or Car l os A l em án Jos é G r u l l on Ar n ol do A l em án M i l ers t o ne

B usiness5

1275218528 $75, 999 4/ 22/ 99 Ar n ol do Al emá n or Car l os A l emán Jos é G r ul l on B y r on Jer ez C ons ul t ores Cor por at i v os

1263604528 $75, 000 4/ 22/ 99 Ar n ol do A l emán A na Fl ores B y r on Jer ez C ons ul t ores Cor por at i v os (Dis t. Ct . Fin di ng s o f Fac t & Co nc lu si on s o f Law, at 2 -3 .) A ft er af ewpr oc ed

ur al f al se start s ( inc lud ing an a ppe al to an d r em an d f

ro m th is Co ur t), t he cas e p ro ceed edto a be nc h t ria l. B
. T he G ov ernm en t’

s C ase A t tri al , the G ove rn m en t atte m pte d to pr es en t se ve ra l sum m ar y w itn es se s, includi ng Francisco Saavedra, a m em ber of the U .S . C ustom s Asset Forf eiture G ro up, and I van L ar a, the N ic ar ag uan law y er w ho h ad pr ose cu te d A le m ánand Jerez on charges of em

bezzlem ent, m oney

laundering, and other fraud. (A lem án
wa s convicted of the charges against him ; Jerez wa s acquitted.) U nf ortun at el y , m any

of the G ove rn m en t’ s ke y

w itn es se s, inc lud ing Sa av edra and L ar a ha d m ini m al non -h ears ay te sti m ony

to of fe r; the re fo re , the Governm ent’ s case turned prim arily on the adequacy

of the docum entary

evidence adm itted at trial. Am ong th at evidence w as an audit condu cted by the Nic araguan Go v ern m en tan dp re p ar edb y wi tn es s J o s é C al d er ó n . Ac co rd i n g t o Ca l d er ó n ’s te sti m ony and p ortio ns o f the audi t, w hic h w er e tr an slate d in to E ngl ishand adm itt ed int o e vid en ce , m ill ion s of dol lars w er e ill eg al ly

r em ove d f

ro m the6

N ic ar ag uan tr ea sur

y be tw ee n 19 97 and 2 002, and w er e div er te d to una uth or iz ed ,

“ ex tr a- budg et ar

y ” funds co ntr oll ed

by the Mi nis tr

y of the P re sid en cy . C al de ró n te st ifi edth atth e au di t d idno t t race an y pi lfe redfun ds to th e Terraba nkacco un ts . In addition to the audit evid ence, the Governm ent introdu ced through Lara
num erous authenticated checks and oth er f inancial docum ents which L ara had obt ai ne d f

ro m N ic ar ag uan banks. T he c he ck s and the ir a cc om pany ing not at ion s
w er e not tr an slate d in to E ngl ish , and the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t pe rm it the pr ose cu tor

to pr ovi de te sti m ony

r eg ar din g th e m eanin g or r el ev an ce of

the fi nanc ia l do cum en ts o n th e gr ound that su chte sti m ony

w oul d be he ar say

c om ing fr om som eo ne oth er

than th e re co rd s c ust odi an . T he G ove rn m en t arg ue d th e doc um en ts r ev ea le d m one y ha d be enr out ed

f ro m pr es ide nti al f

unds to a ch an gin g hous e an d f

ro m the c hangi ng h ouse to Co nsul tor es Co rp or at ivo s, abus ine ss w ith
w hic h Je re z w as a ff

ili at ed
. T he G ove rn m en t pr oduc ed no f inanc ia l do cum en ts linki ng em

bezzled m oney

to either Milerstone Business or the Nicar aguan Dem oc rat ic Fo un da ti on . O f ce ntr al im

portanc e to the G ove rn m en t’ s c as e w as E xhi bit 67, ac opy

of the final j udgm ent of crim inal convictio n in Jerez and A lem án’ s Nicaraguan pr ose cu tio n. O ve r the Cl ai m an ts’ str ong obj ec tio n, and a ft er e xte nsi ve dis cu ssi on
re gard ing the a dm iss ibi lity of the e vid en ce , the dis tr ic t j udge a dm itt ed tw o sm al l7

po rti on s o f th e jud gm en t u nd er t he publ ic reco rd s ex cep ti on to th e h ears ay rul e. Sp ec if ic al ly , the c ourt a dm itt ed the f ac t of A le m án ’ s c onvi ct ionf

or “ launde ri ng o f
m one y and/ or a sse ts p ro ce ed ing f

ro m il le ga l a ct ivi tie s, f

ra ud, e m be zz le m en t of publ ic m oni es , pe cu latio n, and a sso ci at ionand i nst igatio n to c om m it cr im es and electoral c rim e. ” ( See generally T ri al T rans. a t 54 :3- 21, 80: 19- 81: 9; se e als o Ce rt if ie d T ransl at ionof

F ina l D ec isi on o f the N ic ar ag uan F ir st C ri m ina l C ourt of the D istri ct , pe nul tim at e pa ge . ) T he c ourt a lso a dm itt ed aportio n of

the j udgm en t
ac qui tti ng J er ez , but

sug ge sti ng h e w as gui lty in fa ct of a idi ng and a

be tti ng the
cr im es of w hic h A le m ánha d be enc onvi ct ed and tha t Je re z ha d do ne so i n furthe ranc e of

A le m án ’ s f

inanc ia l i nte re sts . T o bo lst er

it s c la im that the m one y

in the c er

tif ic at es of de posi t c oul d no t have com e fr om

Ale m án’ s personal hol ding s, the G overnm ent adm itted financial disclos ure statem ents filed by Ale m án in 199 7 and 200 0, which list m odest real pr op ert y ho ld in gs an d i nc om e. C. T he Claim ant

s’ Ca se A ft er the G ove rn m en t r es te d, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ar d te sti m ony f ro m e ac h of the c la im an ts and f

ro m af ri en d of the A le m án

f am ily , w ho arg ue d th e m one y in the c er tif ic at es of de posi t ha d c om e fr om

le git im at e fam ily

bus ine ss e nde av or s and fr om le git im at e expe ndi tur es f ro m the N ic ar ag uan D em oc ratic F ound at ion
. Mari a8

A le j an dr a A le m ánte sti fi ed

that he r fam ily

ha d be enin the c of

fe e an d c attle busi ne ss f

or m or e than ac en tur

y ; sh e co uld

not , how ev er , pr ovi de any de ta ils regarding the fam ily

busin ess. T he other claim ants and the rem aining witnesses providedsim ilarly

vague testim ony

regar ding the origin of the funds used to op en th e cer ti fic at es of d ep os it
. D. The D istrict Cour t Order O n D ec em

be r 21, 200 6, the dis tr ic t c ourt i ssu ed an op ini on h old ing the G ove rn m en t ha d m et

it s burd enof

pr ovi ng f unds f ro m the N ic ar ag uan D em oc ratic Foundatio n, Miler stone Busin ess, and Cons ultores Corporativos (the m onetary
sour ce s f or the c er tif ic at es of de posi t) w er e “ tr ac ed

to ill ic it ac tiv iti es by

P re sid en t Alem an and By

ron Jerez. ” ( See Dis t. Ct . Fin di ng s o f Fac t & Co nc lu si on s o f Law, dkt
. #16 5, a t 3. ) S pe ci fi ca lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound : [With res pe ctto th e fi ve cert ifi cat es of d ep os itpu rch as edby Jerez ], the re w as c le ar

c om m ing lin g of

il lic it funds w ithsto le n m one y in the accounts of “ Consul tores Corporativos” and the Nicar aguan D em oc ratic F ound at ion
. T he U nit ed S tate s e sta

bli she d th at

the ce rt if ic at es of de posi t w er e pur ch as ed

sho rt ly a ft er P re sid en t A le m an ’ s a ssum

pti on o f the P re sid en cy

of N ic ar ag uaand m ill ion s of dol lars w er e re m ove d f

ro m P re sid en cy

a cc ount s by

his sub or din at es , spe ci fi ca lly

By ro n Je re z, the a ct

ua l purc ha se r of

the c er tif ic at es . T he evidence showed that funds m oved from the office of the Nic araguan Presidency

to a m oney

exchange house, Multicom brios [sic] , and then to J er ez ’ s c or

por at ion s, inc lud ing Co nsul tor es Co rp or at ivo s. U nti l then, A lem an’ s financial transactions in the United States had been m ode st. T he G ove rn m en t a lso pr ove d th at the m aj or ity

of the9

ce rt if ic at es of de posi t w er e not

pur ch as ed

by the A le m ánf

am ily and that Alem an’ s financial disclosu re did not reflect the existence of a larg e am ount

of c as h. Ina ddi tio n, the G ove rn m en t i ntr oduc ed the D ec em

be r 6, 200 3 convictio n and twenty

y ear sentence of Pr esident Alem án for m oney launde ri ng and e m

be zz le m en t. B yro n Je re z w as “ ac qui tte d, ” but the N ic ar ag uan C ourt f

ound that he did

part ic ipate in the c ri m e of f ra ud and used hi s “ resourcef

ulness” to execute the illicit com plex financial tr an sa ct ion s. H is “ ac qui tta l” w as ba se d up on a [ sic ] “pr inc ipl es of Pr opor tio na lity and O ppor

tun ity
. ” T his e vid en ce is cl earl y suf fi ci en t fo r th e Gov ern m en t t o m eetit s b ur de n. (I d. a t 4- 5. ) A ddi tio na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound the te sti m ony

of the c la im an ts not credible, and determ ined non e had succeeded in proving h e or she w as an in no cen t o wne r of

th e fu nd s i n q ue st io n. (

Id

. at 7.) Consequently , the c ourt
or de redall sev en cert ifi cat es for fei te d t o t he Gov ern m en t. ( Id

. at 8 .) II. DISCUSS ION On ap p ea l , Ap p el l an t s ra i s e s ev er al ch al l en g es t o th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s fo rf ei tur e de ci sio n. T w o r equir e dis cu ssi on: Appe llants ’ c ont en tio n th at ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by a dm itt ing f

ac ts c ont ai ne d inthe N ic ar ag uan j udgm en t of convictio n; and (2) the Governm ent failed to adduce sufficient evidence to m eet i t s b u r d e no f

c o n n e c t i n g th e c e rt i f

i c a t e s o f d e p o s i tt o e mb e z z l e dmo n e y. A
. A dm iss ibi lit

y of F ore ign J udgm en t of

Co nv ic tio n W e be ginw iththe que sti on whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by a dm itt ing the10

N ic ar ag uan j udgm en t of

c onvi ct ionand f

ac ts f ound in it an d by

r el y ing on those fa ct s t o fi n dByro nJ er ez embe zz l edfu n d s fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f a d v an ci n g Al emán ’s fi nanc ia l i nte re sts . W e re vie we vid en tiary r uli ngs fo r anabuse of

dis cr et ion ;

“ [h] owever , basing an evidentiary ruling on an err oneous view of the law
co nst itute s an a

buse of dis cr et ion per se. ” U

nited Sta tes v . H

en de rso n , 409 F
. 3d 1293 , 1297 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court adm itted the foreign judgm ent and facts found in it un der the he ar say

e xc ep tio n pe rm itt ing c ourts t o c onsi de r “ fa ct ua l f ind ing s r es ult ing from an investigatio n m ade pursuant to auth ority granted by

law
. . . .” Fed. R. Ci v. P
. 803 (8 )( C)
. B ef

or e or al arg um en t, w e inv ite d th e part ie s to a ddr es s th e ap pli ca bil ity of thi s C ourt’ s de ci sio n in United States v. J ones , 29 F
. 3d 1 549 (1 1th Ci r. 199 4) , w hic h ho lds that R ule 803 (8 )( C) , by

it s pl ai n langua ge , doe s no t a ppl y to jud ic ia l fi nd in gs of f

act . Id

. at 1 55 4. Inr es pons e, the G ove rn m en t c onc ed es that the f ac tua l f ind ing s inthe N ic ar ag uan j udgm en t w er e im pr ope rl y a dm itt ed
. T he f

ac t of A le m án ’ s c onvi ct ion and the sentence he rec eived rem ain adm issib le pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(22 ); however, none of the relevant fac ts foundin the judgm ent of conviction we re adm iss ibl e in the dis tr ic t c ourt. C onse que ntl y , w he n e va luatin g A ppe llants ’ ch al le nge to the suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , w e m ay

not c onsi de r fa ct s dr awn f

ro m11

the N ic ar ag uan j udgm en t of c onvi ct ion
. B. Sufficiency of the Evidence Pr ope rty loc at ed in the U nit ed

S tate s is sub

j ec t t o c ivi l f

or fe iture w he n it

is

“ derived from , or trace able to, any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly

from an of fe nse a ga ins t a

f or ei gn n at ion , ” 18 U
. S. C. § 19 56( c) (7 )( B) , so l ong as the of fe nse a ga ins t the f

or ei gn n at ion( 1) inv olv ed “ em be zz le m en t of

pub lic f unds by or for the benef

it of a public official, ” id. § 19 56( c) (7 )( B) (i v) ; ( 2) w oul d be puni sha ble w ith in the j ur isd ic tio n of the f or ei gn n at ionby

de ath or im pr iso nm en t for m ore than one y ear; and (3) would be punis hable under the laws of the United St at es by im pr iso nm en t f

or m or e than on e y ear if

the a ct or a ct ivi ty c onst itutin g th e o ffen se ha d o ccu rredwit hi n t he juri sd ic ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 98 1( a)(1 )(B) (i) -(i ii ). A t tri al , the G ove rn m en t c ont en de d A le m án , a ssi ste d by his f ri en d and fo rm er int er na l r ev enue se cr et ar

y By ro n Je re z, e m

be zz le d m one y

f ro m the N ic ar ag uan tr ea sur

y , and a ft er

launde ri ng i t, pur ch as ed

the se ve n c er

tif ic at es of de posi t whic h are the sub j ec t of thi s f or fe iture a ct ion
. E m

be zz le m en t i s an of

fe nse that i s punis hable by

m or e than on e y ear’ s im

pr iso nm en t i n bo th N ic ar ag uaand th e Uni te d S ta te s, see E x. 67 ( A le m án ’ s j udgm en t of c onvi ct ionf

or 20 y ears ’ im prisonm ent) and 18 U. S. C. § 641 (em bezzlem ent of m ore than $1,000 in federalWhen the g overnme nt claims that proper ty is subject to forfe iture bec ause it “w as used 2 to c omm it o r f

a c ili tate the c omm iss ion

of a c ri min a l of

fe ns e ,” the Go ve rnme nt m us t “ e sta bli sh that th e re wa s a

su bs tanti a l c onne c tio n b e tw e e n th e pr op e rt y and the of fe ns e .” 18 U. S.C. § 983(c) (3). Claimants contend § 983( c)( 3) is rele vant to this case; howe ver, the Gover nment do e s n ot c onte nd

the c e rt if ic ate s o f d e po sit

we re “ us e d to c omm it o r f a c ili tate ” e mbe zzle me nt: it argues the c ertifica

tes wer e purc hased w ith the fruits of the embe zz lement. Consequently , the 12 funds or pr ope rty pun ish ab le by

up t o te n y ears ’ im

pr iso nm en t) ; the re fo re , if the
m oney used to fundthe certificates of deposit was e m bezzled, the certificates ar e fo rfei tabl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s Go ve rn m en t. Be fo re the Ci vil A sse t F or fe iture Re fo rm A ct too k e ff ec t, in or de r to p re va il at af or fe iture he ar ing , the G ove rn m en t w as r equir ed to es ta bli sh o nly

pr oba ble
cau se to be li ev e th e p ro pe rty in q ue st io n was co nn ect edto a cri m e. United States
v. B ow m an , 341 F
. 3d 1 228, 123 3- 34 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3)
. T he bur de n th enshi ft ed to the claim ant to establish by a preponderance of

the evidence that the property wa s
no t co nn ect ed
. Id

. C A FR Aw as “ de sig ne d to r ec tif y an un fa ir ne ss t o th e indiv idual vis -a-vis the governm ent” by “ forcing the Governm ent to prove that pr ope rty is subj ec t t o f

or fe iture a s op pose d to f

or ci ng the pr ope rty

owne r to p ro ve his prop erty

is not su bje ct to forfe iture.” U nited Sta tes v . B ow m an , 341 F
. 3d 1 228, 1236 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) (c iti ng U nited Sta tes v . R ea l Prope rtyin Se ct ion 9, T ow n 29 No rth , 241 F. 3d 79 6, 799 (6th Cir. 2001)). U nder CA FRAthe Governm ent bears a heavier burden: it m

ust no w prove by

a preponderance of

the evidence that property is subject to civil forfe iture. 18 U. S. C. § 983 (c)( 1). 2Go ve rnme nt w a s r e qu ir e d to de mon str ate on ly tha t th e fu nd s w e re de ri ve d f

ro m or we re tr a c e a

ble to, any proce eds obtained dire ctly or indirec tly

from the e mbezz lement of public funds f rom the Nicar aguan tre asury . Certificates number 1275218528 wa s owned by J osé Grullon, while c ertificate number 3 1263604528 was owne d by Ana F lores. At trial, both cla imants raised a n innocent owne r defe nse under

18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(1). I nnocent owne rship is an aff irmative def

ense de fined narr owly by the statute. Unde r the statutory definition, an innoce nt owner must be e ither an owner whose intere st in the property exis ts at the time the conduc t givingrise to the for feiture takes plac e, id. § 983(d)( 2)(A) , or one who acquir ed a pr operty interest af

ter the c onduct g iving rise to the for feiture has take n place , id. § 983(d)( 3)(A) . Wit h respe ct to this second class, the 13 Inan a ppe al f ro m an in rem ci v i l fo rf

ei tu re , we re v i ew th e d i s tri ctju d g e’s fact ua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r, an d h is co nc lu si on s o f la w de novo
. See U nited Sta tes v . Ca rre ll , 25 2 F .3d11 93 , 11 98 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). At o ral arg um en t, we
as ke d th e G ove rn m en t t o su bm it to u s wha t sh oul d have be enpr ovi de d to the district court: a chart showing the evidentiary connection between m oney stolen fr om the N ic ar ag uan tr ea sur

y and the m one y

use d to f und the c er

tif ic at es of de posi t at i ssu e in this c as e. Appe lle e’ s su bm iss ionc lari fi es the r el ev an ce of the fi nanc ia l do cum en ts s ubm itt ed a t tri al r el at ing to paym en ts m ad e fr om the pr es ide nti al tr ea sur

y , thr oughMu lti cam

bio s, to fo re ignbus ine sse s and u lti m at el y to C onsu lto re s C or

por at ivo s. F ro m

Co nsul tor es Co rp or at ivo s, Je re z dr ewthe funds use d to pur ch as e ce rt if ic at es of de posi t num

be rs 127 5218 528 an d 1263 6045 28. T he district court did n ot clearly err by finding th is evidence wa s suf fi ci en t t o m ee t the G ove rn m en t’ s burd enof pr oof w ithr es pe ct

to tho se
ce rt if ic at es . 3statute define s an innoce nt owner a s one who, at the time that person ac quired the inter est in the

p r o p e rty, (i) wa s a bona f ide purc haser

or seller for va lue (includinga purc haser or se lle r o f g oo ds or

se rv ic e s f

or va lue ); and (ii) did not know and wa s rea sonably without cause to be lieve that the proper ty was subjec t to forfe iture. Id. § 9 83 (d )( 3) (A ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . N e ith e r Gru llo n n or F lor e s te sti fi e d th at he or sh e wa s a “b o n a f i d e p urc h as er

o r s el l er fo r v al u e” o f t h e c ert i fi ca t es o f d ep o s i t . Un d er th e p l ai nl an gu age of the statut e , th e n, the y

wo uld no t ha ve be e n e nti tle d to ra ise an inno c e nt o wn e rs hip de fe ns e even if the district court ha d cre dited their testimony
. 14 T he sam e cannot

be sa id w ithr es pe ct

to the e vid en tiary

sup port f or fo rf ei tur e of the r em ai nin g c er

tif ic at es of de posi t. A s th e G ove rn m en t’ s c hart s the m se lve s r ev ea l, the re is no d ir ec t e vid en ce c onne ct ing c er tif ic at es of de posi t
num be rs 127 1734 30, 125 6700 028, 127 9734 728, 127 1734 729, and 1 2717 3712 9 to
m on ey em be zzl edfro m

th e Nic arag ua n t reas ury . The G overnm ent contends their case with respect to these c ertificates wa s circum stantial, and points to the following eviden ce: the audit which showed
mo n e y wa s s t o l e nf

r o m th e Ni c ar a g u antr e a s u ry dur i n g Al e mán ’s p r e s i d e n c y; Alem án’ s financial statem ents, which sho we d he had m odest person al holdin gs at the tim e the cer

tificates of deposit wer e purchased; evidence that other cer tificates p u rc h as edb y J er ez we re d er i v edfr o m embe zz l edfu n d s an dth ats o m e o f J er ez ’s pe rs ona l a sse ts w er e fo rf ei te d to the U nit ed

S tate s inan unre late d f

or fe iture a ct ion ; docum ents from

Te rrabank showing Jerez purchased thre e of the five c ertificates15

at iss ue ; and the f

ac t Je re z ha d ac onne ct ionto the N ic ar ag uan D em oc ratic Fo un da ti on . Ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce is one thi ng; spe cu latio n anothe r. T he G ove rn m en t’ s c as e w ithr es pe ct to funds de ri ve d f

ro m the N ic ar ag uan D em oc ratic Fo undatio n am ount ed

to little m or e than an in vit at ionf or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o
co nc lud e that be ca

use Je re z use d e m

be zz le d f unds to pur ch as e ce rt if

ic at es of de posi t 12 7521 8528 and 1 2636 0452 8, he m ust have don e the sam e w he n he pur ch as ed

c er tif ic at es 127 1734 30, 127 9734 728, and 1 2717 3472 9, w ithf unds f ro m the N ic ar ag uan D em oc ratic F ound at ion , an or ganiz at ionw hic h, a cc or din g to the
unc ontro ve rt ed

te sti m ony

pr es en te d at tri al , ha d no r es tr ic tio ns o n th e use of it s fu n d s . Th e e v i d en ce wa s i n s u ff i ci en tas a mat t ero f l aw t o m ee tth e G o v ern m en t ’s bu rd en wit h re sp ectto th es e th ree c ert ifi cat es . W ithr es pe ct

to ce rt if ic at es 125 6700 028 an d 12 7173 7129 —purc ha se d by A rn old o and A m el iaA le m ánin the a m ount of $75 , 000 ea ch

—the G ove rn m en t pla ce s c onsi de ra

ble e m pha sis on Appe llants ’ f

ai lur e to p ro duc e busi ne ss r ec or ds p ro v i n g th e c er t i fi ca t es we re fu n d edwi th p ro ce ed s fr o m th e A l emán fa m i l y’ s
co ff ee or li ve sto ck bus ine ss, r athe r than w ithe m be zz le d f unds
. Appe llants , how ev er , w er e unde r no o bli ga tio n to c om e fo rw ar d w ithe vid en ce of the ir r igh tf ul
ow ne rs hip
. R athe r, it

w as the G ove rn m en t’ s burd ento showthe m one y use d to16

pur ch as e the c er

tif ic at es of de posi t w as de ri ve d f

ro m e m be zz le d f unds —and tha t i t did not do. C onse que ntl y , w e hol d th e ev ide nc e w as ins uf fi ci en t a s am atte r of la w to supp or t the di st ric t co ur t’s fo rfei tu re o rd er wi th res pe ctto th es e two cert ifi cat es , as wel l. III. CONCLUSION G ive n th e ev ide nc e ad duc ed a t tri al , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in fi ndi ng the G ove rn m en t m et it s burd enof

pr ovi ng c er

tif ic at es of de posi t 1275 2185 28 and 12 6360 4528 we re subj ect to forf eiture because they

we re der ived fr om f unds sto le n f

ro m the N ic ar ag uan tr ea sur

y . W e af fi rm the c ourt’ s or de r of fo rf ei tur e w ithr es pe ct

to tho se tw o c er

tif ic at es . W ithr es pe ct

to ce rt if ic at e
num be rs 127 1734 30, 125 6700 028, 127 9734 728, 127 1734 729, and 1 2717 3712 9 , however, the Governm ent failed to m eet its burden to present evidence of a
co nn ect io n b et ween th os e fu nd s an d fu nd s s to le n fr om th e Nic arag ua n t reas ury . T he re fo re , w e re ve rs e the de nia l of the dis tr ic t c ourt w ithr es pe ct to tho se f

ive
ce rt if ic at es . AF FIRMED IN P AR T and REVE RS ED IN P AR T.