Filed: Nov. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 06, 2012
Summary: CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds: 1. On June 21, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service — Criminal Investigation ("IRS"), executed a Federal seizure warrant at US Bank located at 1001 Alhambra Boulevard, Sacramento, California. The agents seized Approximately $58,370.00 from US Bank Account Number 253459444969, held in the name of Kimberly J. Wohlford (hereafter "defendant funds"). The IR
Summary: CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds: 1. On June 21, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service — Criminal Investigation ("IRS"), executed a Federal seizure warrant at US Bank located at 1001 Alhambra Boulevard, Sacramento, California. The agents seized Approximately $58,370.00 from US Bank Account Number 253459444969, held in the name of Kimberly J. Wohlford (hereafter "defendant funds"). The IRS..
More
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Pursuant to the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, the Court finds:
1. On June 21, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service — Criminal Investigation ("IRS"), executed a Federal seizure warrant at US Bank located at 1001 Alhambra Boulevard, Sacramento, California. The agents seized Approximately $58,370.00 from US Bank Account Number 253459444969, held in the name of Kimberly J. Wohlford (hereafter "defendant funds"). The IRS then commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings, sending direct written notice to all known potential claimants and publishing notice to all others. On or about July 19, 2012, the IRS received a claim from Kimberly Wohlford and David Gilmore asserting an ownership interest in the defendant funds.
2. The United States represents that it could show at a forfeiture trial that between December 3, 2011 and January 23, 2012, in the Eastern District of California, David Gilmore, Kimberly Wohlford or another person acting for her benefit, structured transactions by breaking up currency deposits at or below $10,000.00 to evade the currency transaction requirement in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3). In particular, and as specified in greater detail in the affidavit in support of seizure warrant 2:12-SW-00346-GGH, between December 3, 2011 and January 23, 2012 at least $58,370.00 in currency was structured into US Bank Account Number 253459444969, held in the name of Kimberly J. Wohlford.
3. The United States could further show at a forfeiture trial that the defendant funds are forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2) (incorporating the procedures governing civil forfeitures in money laundering cases pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 984).
4. Without admitting the truth of the factual assertions contained above, Kimberly Wohlford and David Gilmore specifically denying the same, and for the purpose of reaching an amicable resolution and compromise of this matter, Kimberly Wohlford and David Gilmore agree that an adequate factual basis exists to support forfeiture of the defendant funds. Kimberly Wohlford and David Gilmore acknowledge that they are the sole owners of 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 funds, Kimberly Wohlford and David Gilmore shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States, as set forth below.
5. 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.
6. This Court has venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395, as this is the judicial district in which the defendant funds were seized.
7. 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:
8. The Court adopts the Stipulation for Consent Judgment of Forfeiture entered into by and between the parties.
9. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, $51,073.00 of the $58,370.00 seized from US Bank Account Number 253459444969, together with any interest that may have accrued on that amount, shall be forfeited to the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2), 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 984, to be disposed of according to law.
10. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment of Forfeiture, but no later than 60 days thereafter, $7,297.00 of the $58,370.00 seized from US Bank Account Number 253459444969, together with any interest that has accrued on that amount, shall be returned to potential claimant Kimberly Wohlford through attorney Betty J. Williams.
11. 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 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.
12. 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 funds and a Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465 shall be entered accordingly.
13. 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.
14. All parties will bear their own costs and attorney's fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
