Reply in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Reazuddin (Dkt. 54, W.D. Mo.)

Summary

The government's reply in support of its motion for a preliminary order of forfeiture in United States v. Mirza Michael Reazuddin, Case No. 23-00067-CR-W-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, filed June 12, 2024 as Document 54. It recounts that the motion of May 20, 2024 (ECF No. 51) sought forfeiture of the Subject Property as proceeds of wire fraud or property involved in money laundering, and a money judgment of $804,100. The reply states that the defendant's June 3, 2024 response (ECF No. 53) does not contest the request and asks the court to issue the order, consistent with his plea agreement (ECF No. 42). It asks the court to authorize seizure, begin proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and enter the money judgment, and is signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul S. Becker.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
                            WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                 WESTERN DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff,

            v.                                         Case No. 23-00067-CR-W-BP

 MIRZA MICHAEL REAZUDDIN,

                 Defendant.

                              REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
                 MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

        The United States of America respectfully submits this Reply in further support of its

Motion for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Defendant Mirza Michael Reazuddin

(“Defendant”).

        In its motion dated May 20, 2024, the United States requested the entry of a Preliminary

Order of Forfeiture as to (1) the Subject Property, 1 on the basis that the property constitutes or is

derived from proceeds obtained as a result of wire fraud and/or is property involved in money

laundering activity or property traceable to such property; and (2) a money judgment against

Defendant in the amount of $804,100, representing proceeds he personally obtained in connection

with the wire fraud scheme alleged in the Indictment. ECF No. 51.

        Defendant filed a response to the United States’ motion on June 3, 2024. ECF. No. 53. In

his response, Defendant does not contest the United States’ request for a Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture. Rather, Defendant actually “requests that this court . . . issue the preliminary forfeiture

order” (ECF No. 53 at 3), which is consistent with his agreement to forfeit his interest in the



        The Subject Property is defined in the United States’ Motion for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture.
        1

See ECF No. 51 at ¶ 3.



             Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 54 Filed 06/12/24 Page 1 of 3

Subject Property in his plea agreement (ECF No. 42 at ¶¶ 2, 6(i)(2)). Thus, as an initial matter,

because Defendant does not challenge that the United States has established the requisite nexus

between the Subject Property and the offenses to which he has pleaded guilty, the Subject Property

is subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853.

        The Defendant’s arguments in his response regarding the relationship between his

forfeiture and ultimate restitution liability are misplaced. Forfeiture and restitution are distinct

remedies, which serve different purposes. See United States v. Adetiloye, 716 F.3d 1030, 1041

(8th Cir. 2013) (forfeiture and restitution are different concepts: one is based on defendant’s gain

and the other on the victim’s loss). As such, the United States is entitled to seek forfeiture while

also collecting restitution.

        To the extent Defendant seeks an offset against his restitution by the amount of any

forfeiture collected, the Court lacks discretion to order such an offset. See, e.g., United

States v. Sanjar, 853 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 2017) (a sentencing court lacks statutory authority to order

that restitution be offset by amount of any forfeiture collected in case in which government agency

is victim); United States v. Bodouva, 853 F.3d 76, 78−79 (2d Cir. 2017) (in the absence of a

statutory authorization permitting an offset of restitution paid by a defendant against mandatory

forfeiture, court lacks discretion to order such offset). The Attorney General has discretion to remit

or restore forfeited proceeds to the eligible victims of the offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(e),

28 C.F.R. Pt. 9, and other applicable law, and only when such relief is granted will property or

funds that are subject to forfeiture be credited towards restitution in a criminal case.

        For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in its Motion for a Preliminary Order

of Forfeiture (ECF No. 51), the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter a

Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (1) authorizing the United States to seize the Subject Property and




                                       2
           Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 54 Filed 06/12/24 Page 2 of 3

begin proceedings consistent with 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), and (2) directing a money judgment against

Defendant in the amount of $804,100.

                                                      Respectfully submitted,

                                                      TERESA A. MOORE
                                                      United States Attorney

                                              By      /s/ Paul S. Becker
                                                      Paul S. Becker
                                                      Assistant United States Attorney
                                                      400 E. 9th Street, Fifth Floor
                                                      Kansas City, Missouri 64106
                                                      Telephone: (816) 426-3122

                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I hereby certify that on June 12, 2024, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk
of the Court using the CM/ECF system, for electronic delivery to all counsel of record.

                                                      /s/ Paul S. Becker

                                                      Paul S. Becker
                                                      Assistant United States Attorney




                                       3
           Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 54 Filed 06/12/24 Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mowd.168877.54.0.pdf

Size

138,483 bytes

SHA-256

091207206e43b4bb551c76f8707137af2040a15db87620f7d72cff55f013c144

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mowd.168877.54.0.pdf

Original

archive.org