Source: http://openjurist.org/79/f3d/918
Timestamp: 2015-10-13 12:26:32
Document Index: 115191812

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 981', '§ 5313', '§ 5324', '§ 5313', '§ 1014', '§ 981', '§ 1345', '§ 1291']

79 F3d 918 United States v. Real Property Gartel Drive, Walnut, California | OpenJurist
79 F. 3d 918 - United States v. Real Property Gartel Drive, Walnut, California HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series 79 F.3d
79 F3d 918 United States v. Real Property Gartel Drive, Walnut, California 79 F.3d 918
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1945, 96 Daily JournalD.A.R. 3305UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.REAL PROPERTY 874 GARTEL DRIVE, WALNUT, CALIFORNIA,Including any Buildings, Appurtenances orImprovements Located Thereon, Defendant,andIsidro Beltran; Josefina Beltran, Claimants-Appellants.
No. 94-56237.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 13, 1995.Decided March 22, 1996.
Paul L. Gabbert, Santa Monica, California, for claimants-appellants.
Nicholas V. Morosoff, Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court Central District of California, A. Andrew Hauk, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: ALDISERT,* FARRIS and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Isidro and Josefina Beltran appeal an order forfeiting their property under 18 U.S.C. § 981. The government brought the forfeiture action alleging that the Beltrans' property was involved in, or was traceable to, a transaction that violated 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313(a) and 5324(a). See 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A). It is illegal under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) to structure, or assist in structuring, any transaction for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a). Section 5313(a), when augmented by the Treasury Secretary's regulation, requires financial institutions to report payment or receipt of currency of more than $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service.
The government also argued that the Beltrans' property was subject to forfeiture because the proceeds of its purchase stemmed from a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). It is illegal under section 1014 to knowingly make false statements to a federally insured institution for the purpose of influencing the action of that institution.
Jurisdiction was proper in the district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appeal was timely filed under Rule 4(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
After considering the application, including the $8,400 monthly income from "Josefina's Catering" on its Loan Risk Evaluation form, Great Western Bank approved a $267,000 residential loan for the property, based upon a sales price of $365,000. The sale closed and the loan was secured by a Deed of Trust on the defendant property. The proceeds of the loan were then disbursed to the sellers of the property, and the Beltrans took title.
On appeal, the Beltrans raise a host of issues. They contend (1) that as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause for the government to forfeit their residence under either of the government's two forfeiture theories; (2) that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the government failed to "plead and prove" probable cause in its complaint; (3