PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Annotated and Conformed Forfeiture set) filed by… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 595)

Summary

In this filing of June 27, 2021 (Document 595, Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW), the United States submits its revised proposed forfeiture jury instructions in United States v. Richard Ayvazyan et al., conformed and amended to reflect the counts of the defendants' convictions and to be read during the forfeiture phase of trial. The instructions tell the jury not to reexamine its earlier determination of guilt and to decide only whether the government has proven the required connection between the property sought for forfeiture and the offenses of conviction. They include instructions on forfeiture based on money laundering convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) and a special verdict form.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719) 
CATHERINE AHN (Cal. Bar No. 248286) 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN (Cal. Bar No. 274850) 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
Major Frauds/Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Sections 
1100/1300 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-6527/2424/3819 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269/0141 
E-mail: 
Scott.Paetty@usdoj.gov 
 
Catherine.S.Ahn@usdoj.gov 
 
Brian.Faerstein@usdoj.gov 
 
DANIEL S. KAHN 
Acting Chief, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Trial Attorney, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
1400 New York Avenue NW, 3rd Floor 
Washington, DC 20530 
Telephone: (202) 320-0539 
Facsimile: (202) 514-0152 
E-mail: 
Christopher.Fenton@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN,  
     Aka “Richard Ayazian” 
and “Iuliia Zhadko,” et al. 
 
 
Defendants. 
 
CR 2:20-579(A)-SVW 
GOVERNMENT’S REVISED PROPOSED 
FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 1 of 29   Page ID
#:7174

2 
 
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the acting United States Attorney for the Central District 
of California and Assistant United States Attorneys Dan Boyle, Scott 
Paetty, Catherine S. Ahn and Brian Faerstein, and United States 
Department of Justice Fraud Section Trial Attorney Christopher 
Fenton, hereby submits its revised proposed forfeiture jury 
instructions, conformed and amended to reflect the counts of the 
defendants’ convictions, to be read during the forfeiture phase of 
trial.  
  
Dated: June 27, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
DAN G. BOYLE 
 
CATHERINE AHN 
SCOTT PAETTY 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Department of Justice Trial Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 2 of 29   Page ID
#:7175

3 
 
INDEX OF PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS 
No. 
Title 
Page 
1 
Forfeiture Proceeding 
Follows Guilty 
Verdict 
1 
2 
Scope of Jury’s 
Determination 
2 
3 
Standard of Proof – 
Preponderance of the 
Evidence 
4 
4 
Definition – 
Preponderance of the 
Evidence 
5 
5 
Reliance on Evidence 
Presented During 
Guilt Phase 
6 
6 
Forfeiture 
Allegations Not 
Evidence 
7 
7 
Multiple Bases 
8 
8 
Property Subject to 
Forfeiture for Wire 
Fraud Conviction 
9 
9 
Property Subject to 
Forfeiture for Bank 
Fraud Conviction  
10 
10 
Property Subject to 
Forfeiture for 
Aggravated Identity 
Theft Conviction 
11 
11 
Proceeds Defined 
12 
12 
Fungible Property 
14 
13 
Forfeiture Based on 
Fraud Convictions 
Under 18 U.S.C. 
§ 981(a)(1)(c) 
15 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 3 of 29   Page ID
#:7176

4 
 
No. 
Title 
Page 
14 
Property Subject to 
Forfeiture for Money 
Laundering Conviction 
19 
15 
Scope of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 982(a)(1) 
20 
16 
Forfeiture Based on 
Money Laundering 
Convictions Under 18 
U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) 
23 
17 
Special Verdict Form 
25 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 4 of 29   Page ID
#:7177

 
 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  1] 
[Forfeiture Proceeding Follows Guilty Verdict] 
 
[This Instruction and all following instructions to be read before 
the jury begins its deliberations on forfeiture] 
 
While deliberating concerning the issue of forfeiture you must 
not reexamine your previous determination regarding the defendants’ 
guilt.  However, all the instructions previously given to you 
concerning duties of the jury, your consideration of the evidence, 
what is and is not evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, expert 
testimony, your duty to deliberate together, your duty to base your 
verdict solely on the evidence without prejudice, bias, or sympathy, 
and the necessity of a unanimous verdict, will continue to apply 
during these supplemental deliberations.   
 
 
 
  
Source: Eleventh Circuit Model Jury Instructions, T6 (2017 ed.) 
(adapted); Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. § 981; 
United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 331 (6th Cir. 2010) 
(defendant is not permitted to relitigate the legality of his conduct 
or otherwise attempt to undermine the jury’s finding of guilt during 
the forfeiture phase; affirming district court’s refusal to let 
defendant introduce evidence tending to show his conduct was not 
illegal, and holding that in the forfeiture phase, the legality of 
the conduct is “no longer a live issue;” the only question is the 
nexus between the conduct and the offense). 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 5 of 29   Page ID
#:7178

2 
 
 
 COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  2] 
[Forfeiture – Scope of Jury’s Determination] 
Your duty at this phase of the proceeding is solely to determine 
whether the government has proven the required connection between the 
property sought for forfeiture and the offenses for which you have 
found the defendants guilty. 
You should not consider what might happen to the property in 
determining whether the property is subject to forfeiture; the 
disposition of any property that is declared forfeited is exclusively 
a matter for the Court to decide.  Similarly, if any property has 
been transferred to a third party, the Court will later determine the 
rights of that third party to the property. 
Some of the property which the government claims is subject to 
forfeiture may be in the name of one or more defendants and persons 
or business entities other than the defendants.  However, any 
interest that a person other than a defendant may claim to such 
property will be taken into account by this Court in a separate 
proceeding.  Interests of persons or entities other than any of the 
defendants are not for your consideration. 
Your sole task is to decide whether the defendants’ interest in 
the property, whatever that interest may be, is subject to forfeiture 
under the applicable law. 
 
 
Source: Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A) (only question during 
forfeiture phase is whether evidence establishes requisite nexus 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 6 of 29   Page ID
#:7179

3 
 
between underlying crimes of conviction and property sought to be 
forfeited); United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119, 1132 (9th Cir. 
2005) (district court properly instructed jury that questions of 
ownership “were not before them”); United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 
F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2005) (explaining that the primary purpose of 
Rule 32.2(b)(2) was to preserve the resources of the court and third 
parties by deferring the ownership issue to the ancillary proceeding, 
thus avoiding duplicative litigation); United States v. Andrews, 530 
F.3d 1232, 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (once forfeitability is determined, 
the court does not – “and indeed may not” -- determine ownership, as 
that issue is deferred to the ancillary proceeding). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 7 of 29   Page ID
#:7180

4 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  3] 
[Standard of Proof] 
 
With two important exceptions, all previous instructions will 
continue to apply to your deliberations.  The first exception is that 
during this phase, the government’s burden is no longer proof beyond 
a reasonable doubt, but instead, is simply proof by a preponderance 
of the evidence, which I will define for you.   
The second exception is that during this phase, you will 
consider a component of the potential punishment to be imposed on the 
defendants, but your sole task is to determine whether the government 
has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the required 
connection between the crimes of which the defendants have been 
convicted and the property sought for forfeiture.   
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 39 (1995) (“Our 
precedents have likewise characterized criminal forfeiture as an 
aspect of punishment imposed following conviction of a substantive 
criminal offense.”);  United States v. Lazarenko, 476 F.3d 642, 647 
(9th Cir. 2007) (criminal forfeiture operates in personam against a 
defendant; it is part of his punishment following conviction); Rule 
32.2(b)(5);  United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d 511, 518 (9th 
Cir. 1998) (preponderance standard is constitutional because criminal 
forfeiture is not a separate offense, but only an additional penalty 
for an offense that was established beyond a reasonable doubt). 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 8 of 29   Page ID
#:7181

5 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 4] 
[Definition - Preponderance of the Evidence] 
 
When a party has the burden of proof on any claim by a 
preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the 
evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true.  You 
should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which 
party presented it. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 1.3 (2010 
ed.) [Preponderance of the Evidence]. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 9 of 29   Page ID
#:7182

6 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  5] 
[Reliance on Evidence Presented During Guilt Phase] 
 
In making the forfeiture determination, you should consider all 
of the evidence presented during the trial as well as the evidence 
presented during these post-verdict forfeiture proceedings, 
regardless of who offered it.  You should evaluate the evidence and 
its credibility according to the instructions given to you earlier. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. § 981; 
Rule 32.2 ((b)(1)(B) (whether made by the Court or the jury, the 
nexus determination may be based upon “evidence already in the 
record, including any written plea agreement, and on any additional 
evidence or information submitted by the parties and accepted by the 
court as relevant and reliable.”); United States v. Capoccia, 503 
F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir. 2007) (finder of fact may rely on evidence 
from the guilt phase; it is not necessary for the government to 
reintroduce that evidence in the forfeiture phase). 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 10 of 29   Page ID
#:7183

7 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  6] 
[Forfeiture Allegations Not Evidence] 
 
The forfeiture allegations set forth in the First Superseding 
Indictment are not evidence and do not create any inference that the 
property is subject to forfeiture.  The defendants have denied that 
the property is subject to forfeiture. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Fed. Crim. Jury Instr. 7th Cir. (2012 ed.) [Forfeiture 
Allegations Instruction]; cf. Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions, 
Civil, No. 3.2 (2010 ed.) [Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence]. 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 11 of 29   Page ID
#:7184

8 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  7] 
[Forfeiture – Multiple Bases] 
 
I will soon describe the specific property the government seeks 
to forfeit and what the government must prove to forfeit such 
property.  You will be asked to consider whether such property is 
subject to forfeiture, including on multiple grounds.  You need not 
be concerned with “double-counting” of monetary amounts or 
“overlapping” of properties. 
Even if you find that a particular property is subject to 
forfeiture for more than one reason, that does not mean the 
government will receive the property twice.  However, it is important 
that you indicate on the special verdict form all bases on which you 
find any given property is subject to forfeiture. 
Any issues of “double-counting” or “overlapping” will be 
considered by the Court when imposing sentence. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b); 18 U.S.C. § 982. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 12 of 29   Page ID
#:7185

9 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 8] 
[Property Subject to Forfeiture for Wire Fraud Conviction or 
Conspiracy to Commit such Offense] 
 
Under federal law, any defendant convicted of one or more 
violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, shall 
forfeit to the government all of the defendant’s right, title and 
interest in any and all property, real or personal, constituting, or 
derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a 
result of the offense.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. 
§ 981(a)(1)(C); 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 13 of 29   Page ID
#:7186

10 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 9] 
[Property Subject to Forfeiture for Bank Fraud Conviction] 
 
Under federal law, any defendant convicted of one or more 
violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344, shall 
forfeit to the government all of the defendant’s right, title and 
interest in any and all property, real or personal, constituting, or 
derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a 
result of the offense.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. 
§ 981(a)(1)(C); 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 14 of 29   Page ID
#:7187

11 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 10] 
[Property Subject to Forfeiture for Aggravated Identity Theft 
Conviction] 
 
Under federal law, any defendant convicted of one or more 
violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A concerning 
a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 or 1344, 
shall forfeit to the government all of the defendant’s right, title 
and interest in any and all property, real or personal, constituting, 
or derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a 
result of the offense.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. 
§ 981(a)(1)(C); United States v. Pollard, 850 F.3d 1038, 1042-1043 
(9th Cir. 2017) 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 15 of 29   Page ID
#:7188

12 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  11] 
[Proceeds Defined] 
 
Property subject to forfeiture as proceeds of a scheme to 
defraud includes any money obtained as a result of the scheme, and 
any property obtained with that money. 
Proceeds remain proceeds regardless of how many times the 
property may change form. For example, the proceeds of a crime may 
start out as money in one bank account, be moved to a second bank 
account, be converted to a check, and then used to buy a car. In that 
case, each of the items would be considered the proceeds of the 
offense, or property derived from such proceeds. 
In a case, like this one, involving a scheme to defraud, 
property is subject to forfeiture if it is derived from or traceable 
to the scheme as a whole; it is not necessary for the Government to 
trace the property to a particular execution of the scheme, such as a 
particular wire transfer. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source:  United States v. Swanson, 394 F.3d 520, 529 n.4 (7th Cir. 
2005) (a change in the form of the proceeds does not prevent 
forfeiture; property traceable to the forfeitable property is 
forfeitable as well); United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777, 793 (9th 
Cir. 2016) (“[T]he proceeds of the crime of conviction consist of the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 16 of 29   Page ID
#:7189

13 
 
funds involved in that fraudulent scheme, including additional 
executions of the scheme that were not specifically charged or on 
which the defendant was acquitted.”); United States v. Venturella, 
585 F.3d 1013, 1015, 1016-17 (7th Cir. 2009) (forfeiture in a mail 
fraud case “is not limited to the amount of the particular mailing 
but extends to the entire scheme”); 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2)(A); United 
States v. Boesen, 473 F.Supp.2d 932, 952-953 (S.D. Iowa 2007) 
(forfeiting the gross proceeds of a large health care fraud scheme, 
not just the proceeds of the 82 executions of the scheme); see also 
United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2007) 
(distinguishing scheme offenses such as in Boesen from discrete 
offenses, for purposes of determining forfeitable proceeds).  
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 17 of 29   Page ID
#:7190

14 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 12] 
[Forfeiture of Fungible Property] 
 
The Government is not required to identify specific cash, 
precious metals, or bank funds involved in an offense that is the 
basis for the forfeiture, because it is not a defense that the cash, 
precious metals, or bank funds involved in such an offense were 
removed and replaced by identical property. Any identical cash, 
precious metals, or bank funds found in the same place or account as 
the property involved in the offense that is the basis for the 
forfeiture shall be subject to forfeiture.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source:  18 U.S.C. § 984; 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 18 of 29   Page ID
#:7191

15 
 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  13] 
[Forfeiture based on Fraud Offenses Under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)] 
 
The government seeks to forfeit the following property pursuant 
to the findings of guilt on each of Counts One through Twenty-Two and 
Twenty-Four: 
1. All of the convicted defendant’s right, title and interest in 
certain real Property located in Tarzana, California 
identified by Assessors Parcel Number 2176-029-031; 
2. All of the convicted defendant’s right, title and interest in 
certain real Property located in Glendale, California 
identified by Assessors Parcel Number 5663-036-033; 
3. All of the convicted defendant’s right, title and interest in 
certain real Property located in Palm Desert, California 
identified by Assessors Parcel Number 694-331-008; 
4. $74,557.79 in bank funds seized from Bank of America account 
number ending in 7695 held in the name of Allstate Towing & 
Transport LLC; 
5. $65,990.43 in bank funds seized from Bank of America account 
ending in ‘9700 in the name of Runyan Tax Service Inc.  
6. $451,185.00 in U.S. Currency seized on November 5, 2020, in 
various areas and backyard of a Tarzana, California 
residence; 
7. $3,422.00.00 in U.S. Currency seized on November 20, 2020, 
from Ricahrd Ayvazyan and Marietta Terabelian at the Miami 
International Airport; 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 19 of 29   Page ID
#:7192

16 
 
8. One Audermars Piguet, Royal Oak 18 carat rose gold wrist 
watch, model 26331, serial number J52335; 
9. One Rolex Datejust stainless steel wrist watch, model 126334, 
serial number 4U95Z313; 
10. One Audemars Piguet, Royal Oak Offshore black ceramic wrist 
watch, serial number K23313; 
11. One Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore black ceramic wrist 
watch, serial number LU44845K; 
12. Audemars Piguet Royal Oak stainless steel wrist watch, 
serial number LW3397N; 
13. One Rolex Day-Date watch, serial number W44P7238; 
14. Sixty Gold Bullion coins; 
15. One 14 carat yellow gold 24” neck chain; and 
16. One Pair of 14 carat white gold earrings with diamond 
studs. 
The government contends that the property described above 
constitutes or is derived from proceeds obtained, directly or 
indirectly, as a result of the violation(s) of which one or more 
defendant was found guilty, and is therefore subject to forfeiture to 
the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 
981(a)(1)(C). 
If you conclude that the government has proved by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the property listed above 
constitutes or is derived from proceeds one or more of the defendants 
obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the violation(s) of 
which one or more defendant has been found guilty, you must find that 
such property is forfeitable to the United States.     
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 20 of 29   Page ID
#:7193

17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. § 
981(a)(1)(C); United States v. Lazarenko, 504 F. Supp. 2d 791, 796-97 
(N.D. Cal. 2007) (Rule 32.2(a) requires only that the indictment give 
notice of the forfeiture in generic terms; that the Government did 
not itemize all of the property subject to forfeiture until much 
later was of no moment; older cases holding that property had to be 
listed in the indictment are no longer good law); Rule 32.2(b)(2)(A) 
(The only question to be determined during the forfeiture phase is 
whether the evidence submitted during the guilt phase, together with 
any additional evidence received during the forfeiture phase, 
establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that there is the 
requisite nexus between the underlying crime(s) of conviction and the 
property sought to be forfeited by the government.  “If the court 
finds that the property is subject to forfeiture, it must promptly 
enter a preliminary order of forfeiture . . . directing the 
forfeiture of specific property . . . .”); United States v. Monsanto, 
491 U.S. 600, 607 (1989) (“Congress could not have chosen stronger 
words to express its intent that forfeiture be mandatory in cases 
where the statute applied.”); United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 
1240 (9th Cir. 2011) (following Monsanto: “When the Government has 
met the requirements for criminal forfeiture, the district court must 
impose criminal forfeiture, subject only to statutory and 
constitutional limits”); id. (“[T]he district court has no discretion 
to reduce or eliminate mandatory criminal forfeiture”); Lazarenko, 
476 F.3d at 648 (“Upon a finding that the property involved is 
subject to forfeiture, a court must promptly enter a preliminary 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 21 of 29   Page ID
#:7194

18 
 
order of forfeiture without regard to a third party’s interests in 
the property”); United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119, 1132 (9th Cir. 
2005) (district court properly instructed jury that questions of 
ownership “were not before them”; jury’s return of special verdict of 
forfeiture silent on the issue of ownership of the property); United 
States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2005) (explaining 
that the primary purpose of Rule 32.2(b)(2) was to preserve the 
resources of the court and third parties by deferring the ownership 
issue to the ancillary proceeding, thus avoiding duplicative 
litigation); United States v. Andrews, 530 F.3d 1232, 1236 (10th Cir. 
2008) (once forfeitability is determined, the court does not – “and 
indeed may not” -- determine ownership; that issue is deferred to the 
ancillary proceeding); Lazerenko, 476 F.3d at 648; Gaskin, 2002 WL 
459005, at *9 n.4 (ownership is a question for the court alone to 
determine in the ancillary proceeding), aff’d, 364 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 
2004); United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2015) 
(The standard of proof regarding the criminal forfeitability of 
property is preponderance of the evidence) (fraud); United States v. 
Kalish, 626 F.3d 165, 168 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Garcia-
Guizar, 160 F.3d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1998) (preponderance standard is 
constitutional because criminal forfeiture is not a separate offense, 
but only an additional penalty for an offense that was established 
beyond a reasonable doubt); United States v. Hernandez-Escarsega, 886 
F.2d 1560, 1576-77 (9th Cir. 1989) (interpreting identical language 
in 21 U.S.C. § 853, the forfeiture statute applicable to most 
criminal forfeiture proceedings).  
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 22 of 29   Page ID
#:7195

19 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. 14] 
[Property Subject to Forfeiture for Money Laundering Conviction] 
 
Under federal law, any defendant convicted of one or more 
violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956, or a 
conspiracy to commit the same, shall forfeit to the government all of 
the defendant’s right, title and interest in any and all property, 
real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable 
to such property.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. 
§ 982(a)(1). 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 23 of 29   Page ID
#:7196

20 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  15] 
[Scope of 18 U.S.C. §982(a)(1)] 
Property subject to forfeiture as property involved in a 
violation of Section 1956 of Title 18 of the United States Code 
(Count Twenty-Six) includes: 
1. 
Money or other property that was the subject of the 
financial transaction that constituted the money laundering 
violation; 
2. 
Any property used to facilitate such a money laundering 
violation; and 
3. 
Any fees or commissions paid to the money launderer. 
Property may be the subject of the financial transaction in a 
number of ways.  For example, the property may be the proceeds of the 
underlying specified unlawful activity which were used to conduct the 
transaction; it may be property that was commingled with those 
proceeds at the time the financial transaction took place; or it may 
be property that was obtained as part of an exchange or purchase that 
constitutes the violation for which a defendant has been found 
guilty. 
Property that was used to facilitate the money laundering 
transaction may include property that was not part of the transaction 
itself, but was used to make the money laundering offense easier to 
commit or harder to detect. 
Property that is traceable to the property described in  
(1) through (3) above in this instruction is also subject to 
forfeiture.  The phrase “any property traceable to” such property 
includes any property which was exchanged for, derived from, or 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 24 of 29   Page ID
#:7197

21 
 
obtained with any of the property involved in the underlying money 
laundering crime.  For example, property involved in a money 
laundering violation may be used to acquire, improve, or maintain 
real or personal property in a transaction that is not a money 
laundering violation, but that real or personal property is 
forfeitable because it can be traced to property that was involved in 
the money laundering violation.  Property is forfeitable as traceable 
to property that was involved in a money laundering even if some 
untainted funds were also used to purchase, improve or maintain the 
property. 
 
 
Source: 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1); United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 
669 n.17 (4th Cir. 2003) (court properly instructed jury that it had 
to find that property “fairly represents the property which was 
involved in, or is traceable to property involved in” the money 
laundering counts); United States v. Huber, 404 F.3d 1047, 1058 (8th 
Cir. 2005) (the SUA proceeds involved in a financial transaction, as 
well as any clean money commingled with it, constitute the corpus of 
the money laundering transaction; both are subject to forfeiture); 
United States v. Stewart, 185 F.3d 112, 129-30 (3d Cir. 1999) 
(tainted funds traced into account which held untainted funds were 
forfeitable as “involved in” and “traceable to” money laundering); 
United States v. Nicolo, 597 F. Supp. 2d 342, 355 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (if 
funds in bank account are subject to forfeiture as property involved 
in money laundering, then vehicle purchased with those funds is 
forfeitable as property traceable to such property); United States v. 
Hawkey, 148 F.3d 920, 927-28 (8th Cir. 1998) (property “traceable to” 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 25 of 29   Page ID
#:7198

22 
 
the laundering violation and any appreciation in value is 
forfeitable; entire motor home forfeitable even if untainted funds 
added to value of it). 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 26 of 29   Page ID
#:7199

23 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  16] 
[Forfeiture based on Money Laundering Offenses Under 18 U.S.C. 
§ 982(a)(1)] 
 
The government seeks to forfeit the following property pursuant 
to the findings of guilt on Count 26: 
1. All of the convicted defendant’s right, title and interest in 
certain real Property located in Tarzana, California 
identified by Assessors Parcel Number 2176-029-031; 
2. All of the convicted defendant’s right, title and interest in 
certain real Property located in Glendale, California 
identified by Assessors Parcel Number 5663-036-033; 
3. All of the convicted defendant’s right, title and interest in 
certain real Property located in Palm Desert, California 
identified by Assessors Parcel Number 694-331-008; 
4. $65,990.43 in bank funds seized from Bank of America account 
ending in ‘9700 in the name of Runyan Tax Service Inc.  
5. $451,185.00 in U.S. Currency seized on November 5, 2020, in 
various areas and backyard of a Tarzana, California 
residence; 
6. $3,422.00.00 in U.S. Currency seized on November 20, 2020, 
from Ricahrd Ayvazyan and Marietta Terabelian at the Miami 
International Airport; 
7. One Audermars Piguet, Royal Oak 18 carat rose gold wrist 
watch, model 26331, serial number J52335; 
8. One Rolex Datejust stainless steel wrist watch, model 126334, 
serial number 4U95Z313; 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 27 of 29   Page ID
#:7200

24 
 
9. One Audemars Piguet, Royal Oak Offshore black ceramic wrist 
watch, serial number K23313; 
10. One Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore black ceramic wrist 
watch, serial number LU44845K; 
11. Audemars Piguet Royal Oak stainless steel wrist watch, 
serial number LW3397N; 
12. One Rolex Day-Date watch, serial number W44P7238; 
13. Sixty Gold Bullion coins; 
14. One 14 carat yellow gold 24” neck chain; and 
15. One Pair of 14 carat white gold earrings with diamond 
studs. 
The government contends that the property described above was 
involved in or traceable to the money laundering violations for which 
one or more defendants were found guilty, and is therefore subject to 
forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 982(a)(1). 
If you conclude that the government has proved by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the property listed above was 
involved in such offense, or traceable to the violation(s) of which 
one or more defendant has been found guilty, you must find that such 
property is forfeitable to the United States.     
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2; 18 U.S.C. 
§ 982(a)(1) 
 
  
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 28 of 29   Page ID
#:7201

25 
 
COURT’S FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO. ____ 
[PROPOSED FORFEITURE INSTRUCTION NO.  17] 
[Special Verdict Form] 
 
A Special Verdict Form has been prepared for your use.  With 
respect to the property listed or described, you are asked to decide 
whether it is subject to forfeiture to the government based on the 
reasons I have explained to you.  Your decision must be unanimous.  
Indicate on the verdict form whether you find that the property 
listed is subject to forfeiture, and then the foreperson should sign 
and date the form. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 
981; Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 133 L. Ed. 2d. 271, 116 
S. Ct. 356, 365 (1995). 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 595     Filed 06/27/21     Page 29 of 29   Page ID
#:7202

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.595.0.pdf

Size

247,027 bytes

SHA-256

2a430f20538e4a2098dcd693dc1de7164e201f7ede6894136778eeb020941f14

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.595.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)