USA v. Approx. 10.19321397 Bitcoin, No. 2:2021cv02353 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/26/22 ORDERING that within fourteen days of the date of this order the United States shall serve a copy of this order on the potential claimants via any method pr eviously permitted in this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and Binance be held in default. That the United States motion for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture be granted. That judgment by default be entered against any right, title or interest of potential claimants Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and Binance in the defendant cyrptocurrency referenced in the above caption. That a final judgment be entered, forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the defendant cryptocurrency to the United States to be disposed of according to law. That default Judgment and Final Judgment of forfeiture lodged herein be signed by the assigned District Judge and filed by the Clerk of the Court. Motions 20 , 22 referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 28 days.(Plummer, M)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-2353 TLN DB ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. APPROXIMATELY 10.19321397 BITCOIN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter came before the undersigned on the United States’ ex parte motion for default 18 judgment. There was no appearance by or on behalf of any other person or entity claiming an interest 19 in the above-captioned defendant cryptocurrency to oppose the United States’ motion. Based on the 20 United States’ motion and the files and records of the court, the undersigned finds as follows: 21 1. This action arose out of a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem filed December 17, 2. The United States has moved this Court, pursuant to Local Rule 540, for entry of default 22 2021. 23 24 judgment of forfeiture against potential claimants Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and 25 Binance. 26 3. The United States has shown that a complaint for forfeiture was filed; that potential 27 claimants Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and Binance received notice of the forfeiture action; 28 29 30 1 Findings and Recommendations 1 that any and all other unknown potential claimants have been served by publication; and that grounds 2 exist for entry of a final judgment of forfeiture. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date of this order the 3 4 United States shall serve a copy of this order on the potential claimants via any method previously 5 permitted in this action. 6 Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 7 1. That Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and Binance be held in default; 8 2. That the United States’ motion for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture be 9 granted; 3. 10 That judgment by default be entered against any right, title, or interest of potential 11 claimants Tarun Kumar Arora, Caroline Hepworth, and Binance in the defendant cryptocurrency 12 referenced in the above caption; 4. 13 That a final judgment be entered, forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the defendant 14 cryptocurrency to the United States, to be disposed of according to law; 5. 15 That the Default Judgment and Final Judgment of Forfeiture lodged herein be signed by 16 the assigned District Judge and filed by the Clerk of the Court. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 17 18 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-eight days after being 19 served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court 20 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 21 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 22 fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 24 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 Dated: May 26, 2022 26 27 DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.civil/USv10.19321397.2353.mdj.f&rs 28 29 30 2 Findings and Recommendations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 Findings and Recommendations

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.