Opinion ID: 3216857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Teadt’s Claim of Ownership of Seized Dinars

Text: Teadt contends that the district court erred in concluding that he had not met his burden under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) to establish ownership of dinars seized from Huebner’s office on July 27, 2011. The district court’s legal interpretations are reviewed de novo; its factual findings are reviewed for clear error.3 United States v. Salti, 579 F.3d 656, 667 (6th Cir. 2009). During the execution of the search warrant at Huebner’s office, agents located 705 dinar notes locked in Teadt’s desk. Agents seized those notes along with others found in the office. Because the government initially was unsure whether the notes belonged to Teadt or Huebner, the United States sought forfeiture of the notes from both men. Ultimately, Teadt was acquitted of the dinar and hedge-fund frauds while Huebner was convicted. The district court found that the seized currency was subject to forfeiture against Huebner. At that point, Teadt made a third-party claim under § 853(n) for $14,975.96 converted from 17,625,000 dinar notes. On December 18, 2014, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on Teadt’s claim and denied the claim the following day. The court was not swayed by Teadt’s testimony that Huebner’s office was a safer place than Teadt’s own home to store the dinars. Teadt’s statement contradicted his trial testimony, during which he stated that he deposited cash into a bank instead of keeping it at the BH Group office because the office was not a safe place to keep cash. Testimony revealed that when an undercover IRS agent purchased dinars from the BH Group, Teadt retrieved the currency from 3 Teadt asserts that the district court erred in shifting the burden of proof to him. Instead of requiring the government to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the dinars were forfeitable, Teadt claims that the district court erroneously required him to prove his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court did not err. We have explained that while the government ordinarily must prove forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 331 (6th Cir. 2010), in an ancillary claim, “the burden shifts to the petitioner to establish the petitioner’s third-party claim by a preponderance of the evidence,” United States v. Coffman, 612 F. App’x 278, 284 (6th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 15 Case Nos. 14-3995/14-4124/14-4125/15-3014/15-3015, United States v. Teadt, et al. his desk drawer. It is also notable that dinar notes were stashed in drawers and cabinets all around the office. The only documentary evidence that Teadt submitted in support of his claim was checks made out from Teadt to Huebner totaling $9,350.00. Based on the facts of record, the district court did not commit clear error in rejecting Teadt’s claim under § 853(n). V. Structuring to Avoid Reporting Requirement Instruction Huebner was convicted on Counts 13 through 42 of structuring and attempting to structure transactions to avoid reporting requirements under 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313(a) and 5324(a)(3). During his testimony at trial, Huebner conceded that he intentionally deposited cash to avoid making deposits over $10,000. While at times it was a coincidence, he stated, other times, it was done upon the advice of a bank employee to avoid allegedly unnecessary paperwork. Over Huebner’s objection, the district court instructed the jury that Huebner could not rely on the bank teller’s instructions. We review challenges to jury instructions for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ross, 502 F.3d 521, 527 (6th Cir. 2007). Further, a judgment may be reversed based upon an improper jury instruction “only if the instructions, viewed as a whole, were confusing, misleading, or prejudicial.” United States v. Harrod, 168 F.3d 887, 892 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Beard v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, 900 F.2d 71, 72-73 (6th Cir. 1990)). With respect to structuring, the jury was instructed as follows: The government must prove that a given defendant knew of the reporting requirement and that he intended to evade it. The government does not have to prove that a defendant knew that evading the requirement was illegal. A defendant’s belief that his conduct was lawful is not a defense to this charge, even if that belief is based on statements made to him by bank employees. While Huebner argues that the reference to bank employees eviscerated his entire defense to the charges, the district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing to include it. Most 16 Case Nos. 14-3995/14-4124/14-4125/15-3014/15-3015, United States v. Teadt, et al. importantly, the court correctly instructed the jury that Huebner had to know of the reporting requirement and intend to evade it. See United States v. Pang, 362 F3d 1187, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2004). Huebner argues that, based on the advice of bank employees, he believed the reporting requirement was an internal bank procedure. He was able to present this evidence through his testimony, however, and was therefore not prejudiced by this instruction. Regardless, Congress has revised the structuring statute “to obviate the need to prove that a defendant knew his structuring activities were illegal.” United States v. Khalife, 106 F.3d 1300, 1302 n.3 (6th Cir. 1997).