Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. $707,291.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, CV 15-03179-ODW(PLAx). (2016)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20160223759 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2016
Summary: [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT OTIS D. WRIGHT , District Judge . The civil forfeiture action captioned above was commenced on April 29, 2015. The defendant currency was seized from Hakop Tashyan ("Tashyan"), and he was the only person to submit a claim and answer. Claimant Tashyan filed a claim on July 2, The time for filing claims and answers has expired and no person other than Tashyan is believed to have a claim to the defendant asset, $707,291.00 in U.S. Currency ("defendant currency").
More

[PROPOSED]

CONSENT JUDGMENT

The civil forfeiture action captioned above was commenced on April 29, 2015. The defendant currency was seized from Hakop Tashyan ("Tashyan"), and he was the only person to submit a claim and answer. Claimant Tashyan filed a claim on July 2, The time for filing claims and answers has expired and no person other than Tashyan is believed to have a claim to the defendant asset, $707,291.00 in U.S. Currency ("defendant currency").

Plaintiff and Tashyan have made a stipulated request for the entry of this consent judgment of forfeiture resolving all claims concerning the defendant currency (Asset ID No. 14-DEA-601288).

The Court has been duly advised of and has considered the matter. Based upon the mutual consent of the parties hereto and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that $697,291.00 of the defendant currency (Asset ID No. 14-DEA-601288) and all interest earned on the entirety of the defendant currency since seizure, is hereby forfeited to the United States, and no other right, title or interest shall exist therein. The remaining portion of the defendant currency, $10,000.00 in U.S. currency, without any interest, shall be returned to Tashyan through his counsel. The funds are to be made payable via ACH deposit to Tashyan's attorney George G. Mgdesyan.

The Court finds that there was reasonable cause for the seizure of the defendant asset and the institution of this action. This consent judgment shall be construed as a certificate of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465. Each of the parties shall bear its own fees and costs in connection with the seizure, retention and return of thezure, reetention and return off the defendant asset.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer