Lex Digitales Мониторинг трендов регулирования цифровой экономики

← к документу

Что изменилось

United States v. Approximately 927,155.442 Usdt · редакция 2 → 3 · зафиксировано 2026-09-17 03:25 · +6 −4 строк

## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
“[T]he defendant’s default notwithstanding, the plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment only if the complaint states a claim for relief.” Jackson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 564 F. Supp. 2d 22, 27 (D.D.C. 2008).
## III.Analysis
## III. Analysis
A.Notice “Before a default judgment is entered pursuant to a complaint for forfeiture in rem, the government must show that it complied with the notice requirements contained in the
## A. Notice
“Before a default judgment is entered pursuant to a complaint for forfeiture in rem, the government must show that it complied with the notice requirements contained in the
Supplemental Rules.” United States v. $1,071,251.44 of Funds Associated with Mingzheng Int’l
R. G(4)(a)(ii)). And second, the government has represented that there are no known potential claimants for Defendant Property here. See Mot. for Default J. ¶ 2. Although some individuals apparently reached out to Tether to claim ownership over funds held in two of the five subject addresses holding Defendant Property, Compl. ¶ 86, they cut off contact after investigators probed for any identifying information, id. ¶¶ 87–91. Because none of these individuals “provided credible proof of ownership” over any portion of Defendant Property, the government has therefore concluded that “there is no person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant in this case.” See also Resp. to Order of Court, ECF No. 9 ¶ 3. Based on the available representations, the Court agrees and concludes that both of Supplemental Rule G’s notice requirements are satisfied here.
B.Adequacy of the Complaint
## B. Adequacy of the Complaint
Supplemental Rule G further sets forth the pleading requirements for an in rem civil forfeiture action. The government must file a verified complaint that states the grounds for jurisdiction and venue, “describe[s] the property with reasonable particularity,” “identif[ies] the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought,” and “state[s] sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.”
In short, the “pig butchering” scheme detailed in the government’s complaint defrauded a slew of victims and then attempted to wash the stolen funds by passing them through a series of intermediary crypto wallets. The allegations support a reasonable belief that the government would be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Property is traceable to wire fraud and money laundering, rendering it forfeitable under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1).
## IV.Conclusion
## IV. Conclusion
Because the verified complaint states a claim for forfeiture in rem under Supplemental
United States District Judge Date: August 21, 2026