Opinion
Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00001-PAB
07-25-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. LEONID STOLYAR, 2. YELENA STOLYAR, Defendants.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motions for preliminary orders of forfeiture and forfeiture money judgment [Docket Nos. 109, 110] filed by the United States. The motions quote language in the plea agreements of both defendants that the defendants agree to forfeit a "money judgment." See Docket No. 109 at 2; Docket No. 110 at 2. At the change of plea hearing for Leonid Stolyar, the Court asked counsel whether there is a pre-existing judgment that Mr. Stolyar was somehow forfeiting and was told that there was not. Counsel told the Court that, instead of forfeiting a money judgment, Mr. Stolyar agreed to provide a money judgment. A similar colloquy occurred that day in connection with a change of plea hearing for Ms. Stolyar, although defense counsel believed that, instead of Ms. Stolyar providing a money judgment, one would be imposed on her.
The motions for preliminary orders of forfeiture do not clarify the ambiguity that the Court asked about at the change of plea hearings. Moreover, the draft orders attached to the motions contain language that contradicts the parties' claimed understanding of money judgments and instead indicate that defendants will each forfeit a "money judgment in the amount of $497,418.07."
The Court is unable to grant the motions until the parties clarify their understanding of the money judgment issue. Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that the parties shall clarify their understanding of the defendants' obligations in regard to the money judgments on or before July 26, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge