Opinion
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds:
1. On October 1, the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") executed Federal seizure warrants in Nevada City and Sacramento, California. The agents seized Approximately $5, 000.00 in U.S. Currency in Nevada City and Approximately $1, 400.00 and Approximately $1, 000.00 in U.S. Currency (hereafter "defendant currency") in Sacramento. On October 5, 2012, the DEA executed Federal seizure warrants on the Bank of Hawaii, Bank of America and Redwood Credit Union. The agents seized Approximately $3, 634.69 in U.S. Currency from Bank of Hawaii Account Number XXXX-XXXXXX, Approximately $4, 651.57 in U.S. Currency from Bank of America Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX, Approximately $4, 892.90 in U.S. Currency from Bank of America Account Number XXXX-XXXX-XXXX, and Approximately $744.45 in U.S. Currency from Redwood Credit Union Account Number XXXXXX (hereafter the "defendant funds"). DEA then commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings, sending direct written notice to all known potential claimants and publishing notice to all others. On or about December 26, 2012, the DEA received a claim from Bhimasena Jones asserting an ownership interest in the defendant currency. On or about and January 8, 2013, DEA received a claim from Bhimasena Jones asserting an ownership interest in the defendant funds.
2. The government represents that it could show at a forfeiture trial that on October 1, 2012, DEA agents executed Federal seizure warrants on the defendant currency. The agents seized Approximately $5, 000.00, Approximately $1, 400.00 and Approximately $1, 000.00 in U.S. Currency that was allegedly money furnished and intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical, constituted proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and was used and intended to be used to commit or facilitate a violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 et seq.
3. The government also represents that it could show at a forfeiture trial that on October 5, 2012, DEA agents executed Federal seizure warrants on the defendant funds. The agents seized Approximately $3, 634.69 in U.S. Currency from Bank of Hawaii Account Number XXXX-XXXXXX, Approximately $4, 651.57 in U.S. Currency from Bank of America Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX, Approximately $4, 892.90 in U.S. Currency from Bank of America Account Number XXXX-XXXX-XXXX, and Approximately $744.45 in U.S. Currency from Redwood Credit Union Account Number XXXXXX. These funds were allegedly money furnished and intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical, constituted proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and was used and intended to be used to commit or facilitate a violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 et seq.
4. The United States could further show at a forfeiture trial that the defendant currency and the defendant funds are forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
5. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained in this stipulation, Bhimasena Jones specifically denying the same, and for the purpose of reaching an amicable resolution and compromise of this matter, Bhimasena Jones agrees that an adequate factual basis exists to support forfeiture of the defendant currency and the defendant funds. Bhimasena Jones hereby acknowledges that he is the sole owner of the defendant currency and the defendant funds, and that no other person or entity has any legitimate claim of interest therein. Should any person or entity institute any kind of claim or action against the government with regard to its forfeiture of the defendant currency and the defendant funds, Bhimasena Jones shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States, as set forth below.
6. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355, as this is the judicial district in which acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.
7. This Court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395, as this is the judicial district in which the some of the assets were seized.
8. The parties herein desire to settle this matter pursuant to the terms of a duly executed Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture.
Based upon the above findings, and the files and records of the Court, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
9. The Court adopts the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture entered into by and between the parties.
10. Upon entry of the Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the following assets, together with any interest that has accrued on the total amount seized, shall be forfeited to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), to be disposed of according to law:
• Approximately $5, 000.00 in U.S. Currency;
• Approximately $1, 400.00 in U.S. Currency;
• Approximately $1, 000.00 in U.S. Currency;
• Approximately $3, 634.69 in U.S. Currency from Bank of Hawaii Account Number XXXX-XXXXXX; and
• $288.92 of the Approximately $744.45 in U.S. Currency from Redwood Credit Union Account Number XXXXXX.
11. Upon entry of the Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, but no later than 60 days thereafter, the following assets shall be returned to potential claimant Bhimasena Jones, through his attorney David W. Dratman:
• Approximately $4, 651.57 in U.S. Currency from Bank of America Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX;
• Approximately $4, 892.90 in U.S. Currency from Bank of America Account Number XXXX-XXXX-XXXX; and
• $455.53 of the Approximately $744.45 in U.S. Currency from Redwood Credit Union Account Number XXXXXX.
12. The United States of America and its servants, agents, and employees and all other public entities, their servants, agents, and employees, are released from any and all liability arising out of or in any way connected with the seizure or forfeiture of the defendant currency and the defendant funds. This is a full and final release applying to all unknown and unanticipated injuries, and/or damages arising out of said seizure or forfeiture, as well as to those now known or disclosed. The parties waived the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542.
13. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture filed herein, the Court finds that there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the defendant currency and the defendant funds and a Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 shall be entered accordingly.
14. No portion of the stipulated settlement, including statements or admissions made therein, shall be admissible in any criminal action pursuant to Rules 408 and 410(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
15. All parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.