Opinion
STEPHANIE YONEKURA, Acting United States Attorney, ROBERT E. DUGDALE, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, STEVEN R. WELK, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section, CHRISTEN A. SPROULE, (California State Bar Pending) Assistant United States Attorney, LUCAS E. ROWE, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Asset Forfeiture Section, Los Angeles, California. Attorneys for Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
DAVID O. CARTER, District Judge.
A Court trial of this matter was held on May 26, 2015. The Court issued its Order re Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Docket No. 75) on June 16, 2015. The Court found that Plaintiff, United States of America, proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, One 2006 Lamborghini Murcielago, is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2) because it represents proceeds of, or is traceable to, one or more violations of 31 U.S.C. § 5324. The Court further found that Claimant, NextGear did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was an innocent owner of the defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d), or establish any other defense to the forfeiture.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
1. All right, title and interest in the defendant, One 2006 Lamborghini Murcielago, is hereby forfeited to plaintiff United States of America and no other right, title or interest shall exist therein. The government shall dispose of the defendant vehicle according to law.
2. Claimant NextGear did not substantially prevail in this action within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2465. This judgment shall constitute a certificate of reasonable cause within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a)(2).
3. There being no just reason for delay, the clerk is hereby directed to enter this judgment, which constitutes a final judgment resolving this action as to all of the parties hereto, and all other potential claimants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.