United States of America v. All Proceeds of Wells Fargo Bank Cashiers Check In The Amount of 466,680.00
Filing
16
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE by Judge Stephen V. Wilson This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties to this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture. 2. The Complaint for Forfeiture states a claim for relief. The enti re amount (i.e. $466,680.00 of the defendant bank funds), with no interest, shall be returned to claimant Eric Mark via electronic wire transfer. Eric Mark, through his counsel, will provide the necessary banking information to facilitate the wire transfer. Claimant hereby releases the United States of America. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction in this case for the purpose of effectuating the terms of this Consent Judgment ofForfeiture.( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (see attached (pj)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
ROBERT E. DUGDALE
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
STEVEN R. WELK
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section
FRANK D. KORTUM
Assistant United States Attorney
California Bar No.: 111984
Federal Courthouse, 14th Floor
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone:
(213) 894-5710
Facsimile:
(213) 894-7177
E-mail: Frank.Kortum@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
WESTERN DIVISION
15
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
16
Plaintiff,
17
v.
18
19
20
ALL PROCEEDS OF WELLS FARGO
BANK CASHIER’S CHECK IN THE
AMOUNT OF $466,680.00,
21
Defendant.
22
23
24
25
26
ERIC MARK,
Claimant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. CV 11-08861-SVW-(VBKx)
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
On or about October 26, 2011, plaintiff United States of
27
America (“the United States of America”) filed a Complaint for
28
Forfeiture alleging that the defendant $466,680.00 of Wells
1
Fargo Bank Cashier’s Check proceeds (the “defendant bank funds”)
2
are subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A)and
3
(C).
4
Claimant Eric Mark (“claimant”) filed a claim on December
5
15, 2011 and an answer on December 29, 2011.
6
have appeared in this case and the time for filing claims and
7
answers has expired.
8
9
10
No other parties
The United States of America and claimant have now agreed to
settle this action and to avoid further litigation by entering
into this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.
11
The Court having been duly advised of and having considered
12
the matter, and based upon the mutual consent of the parties
13
hereto,
14
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
15
1.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
16
this action and the parties to this Consent Judgment of
17
Forfeiture.
18
2.
19
The Complaint for Forfeiture states a claim for relief
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and (C).
20
3.
Notice of this action has been given as required by
21
law.
22
other than the claimant.
23
entered as to the interests of Eric Mark Family Limited
24
Partnership, Christopher Mark, Ivan Mark, Oregon Trail Finance
25
Group, Oregon Trail Corporation, Nationwide Reality Association,
26
LLC., Manual Arias, Alex Group, LLC., Samuel Rodriguez, Marc
27
Lantzman, and all other potential claimants by the Court on March
28
14, 2012.
No appearances have been made in this case by any person
A partial default judgment has been
2
1
4.
The entire amount (i.e. $466,680.00 of the defendant
2
bank funds), with no interest, shall be returned to claimant Eric
3
Mark via electronic wire transfer.
4
counsel, will provide the necessary banking information to
5
facilitate the wire transfer.
6
5.
Eric Mark, through his
The funds to be returned pursuant to paragraph 4 shall
7
be paid to the Eric Mark within sixty (60) days of the entry of
8
this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.
9
6.
Claimant hereby releases the United States of America,
10
its agencies, agents, officers, employees and representatives,
11
including, without limitation, all agents, officers, employees
12
and representatives of the Federal Bureau of investigation and
13
the Department of Justice and their respective agencies, as well
14
as all agents, officers, employees and representatives of any
15
state or local governmental or law enforcement agency involved in
16
the investigation or prosecution of this matter, from any and all
17
claims, actions, or liabilities arising out of or related to this
18
action, including, without limitation, any claim for attorney
19
fees, costs, and interest, which may be asserted by or on behalf
20
of claimant.
21
7.
The Court finds that there was reasonable cause for the
22
seizure of the defendant bank funds and institution of these
23
proceedings.
24
of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465.
25
8.
This judgment shall be construed as a certificate
The Court further finds that the government promptly
26
recognized claimant's interest in the defendant asset.
27
the parties hereto shall bear its own attorney fees and costs.
28
//
3
Each of
1
9.
The Court shall maintain jurisdiction in this case for
2
the purpose of effectuating the terms of this Consent Judgment of
3
Forfeiture.
4
5
6
7
8
9
DATED: May 4, 2012
HON. STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1
2
3
CONSENT
The parties hereto consent to the above Consent Judgment of
Forfeiture and waive any right of appeal.
4
5
DATED: April 30, 2012
6
7
8
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
ROBERT E. DUGDALE
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
STEVEN R. WELK
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section
9
10
________________________
/S/
FRANK D. KORTUM
Assistant United States Attorney
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America
13
14
15
16
DATED: May 3 , 2012
LAWRENCE LEWIS LAW OFFICES
17
18
/S/
LAWRENCE LEWIS, ESQ.
19
Attorney for Claimant Eric Mark
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
