Memorandum Opinion and Order — No. 3:20-cr-00484 (Dkt. 98, N.D. Tex.)

Summary

A memorandum opinion and order by United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford in United States v. Dinesh Sah, Case No. 3:20-cr-484-S, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, filed May 23, 2022 as Document 98. It recites that Sah submitted applications for purported small businesses to multiple lenders seeking approximately $25 million in PPP loans. The government moved to dismiss two third-party petitions claiming an interest in forfeited property as untimely. Because the petitioners alleged they received no direct notice and had no actual notice of the forfeiture proceedings, the court denies the motions (ECF Nos. 88, 89).

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

Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22   Page 1 of 11 PageID 609



                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                             DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                     §
                                             §
v.                                           §     Case No. 3:20-cr-484-S
                                             §
DINESH SAH                                   §

                   MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

        The government filed separate Motions to Dismiss two related third-party

petitions for an adjudication of interest in property that was ordered forfeited in

this criminal case. At this procedural stage, the government contends only that the

petitions are untimely. But, as explained below, Petitioners alleged the government

did not provide them with direct notice of the forfeiture proceedings and they did

not otherwise have actual notice of the proceedings. Therefore, the government’s

Motions (ECF Nos. 88, 89) are DENIED.

                                  I. Background

        In March of 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and

Economic Security (CARES) Act and created the Paycheck Protection Program

(PPP) authorizing the Small Business Administration to distribute more than $650

billion in forgivable loans to small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pub. L. No. 116-136. Beginning shortly thereafter and continuing through August

2020, Defendant Dinesh Sah submitted fraudulent applications under the names

of various purported small businesses he owned or controlled to multiple lenders

seeking approximately $25 million in PPP loans. Sah misrepresented the number

                                         1

  Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22        Page 2 of 11 PageID 610



of employees and the amount of payroll expenses these purported businesses had

and submitted fraudulent documentation in support of his applications, including

false federal tax documents and bank statements. Sah received more than $17

million in PPP funds and used the money to purchase multiple homes, luxury

vehicles, and jewelry. He also sent millions of dollars in international money

transfers. See generally Indictment (ECF No. 14). In particular, Sah transferred $3

million to two bank accounts in Mumbia, India, in July and August 2020—which

is the property at issue in the pending third-party petitions.1

      Federal law enforcement officers quickly recognized Sah’s scheme and

arrested him in September 2020. Six months later, Sah pleaded guilty to wire-

fraud and money-laundering charges; and in July 2021, the Court sentenced Sah

to more than eleven years in prison and ordered him to pay $17,284,649.79 in

restitution.

      On August 24, 2021, the Court issued an Amended Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture (ECF No. 71), which specifically identifies the $3 million in international

money transfers as forfeited property. On October 4, 2021, the government filed

its Notice of Publication regarding forfeiture, indicating that the government

posted notice of this forfeiture action on the official government forfeiture website



1 On July 14, 2020, Sah transferred $1.5 million in U.S. currency to an account in

the name of Panin Hitech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. at the Axis Bank Limited in Mumbai,
India. And on August 4, 2020, Sah transferred $1.5 million in U.S. currency
transferred to an account in the name of Panin Hitech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. at the
HDFC Bank Limited Kanjur Marg East in Mumbai, India. Am. Preliminary Ord. of
Forfeiture 9 (ECF No. 71).
                                          2

  Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22       Page 3 of 11 PageID 611



(www.forfeiture.gov) for at least 30 consecutive days beginning on August 27,

2021. (ECF No. 75).

      On March 15, 2022, Petitioners Panin Hitech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Panin

Hitech) and Pankaj Gohil filed separate third-party petitions under 21 U.S.C. §

853(n) to assert a legal right to the funds in the Indian bank accounts identified in

the Amended Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. See Pets. (ECF Nos. 82 & 83). In

response, the government filed the pending Motions to Dismiss the petitions as

untimely. Petitioners dispute they missed the deadline for filing their petitions.

      According to Petitioners, Gohil founded Panin Hitech, a corporate entity

dealing in commercial grade high-definition technology displays, large interactive

video displays, rear projections systems, and related products, in 2010. Pet. of

Pankaj L. Gohil ¶ 2 (ECF No. 82). Sah first approached Gohil and expressed an

interest in investing in Panin Hitech in 2016. Id. ¶ 3. Then in June 2020, Sah

approached Gohil again. Id. ¶ 4. Sah proposed forming a limited liability company

in Texas—Panin LLC—to acquire a controlling interest in Panin Hitech and market

Panin Hitech technology products in the United States. Id. ¶¶ 5, 7. Sah provided

Gohil with entity documents for Panin LLC, including a certification of formation

and an operating agreement. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. In August, Gohil transferred shares of

Panin Hitech to Panin LLC, and Sah sent $3 million to Petitioners by international

money transfers to Panin Hitech’s bank accounts in Mumbai, India. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.

      Petitioners disavow any contemporaneous knowledge of Sah’s criminal

activities. They contend Panin Hitech first became aware of Sah’s fraud in

                                         3

  Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22        Page 4 of 11 PageID 612



September 2020, when Sah’s wife contacted Gohil and informed him that the IRS

had questions about the Panin LLC transactions. See id. ¶ 18. Gohil spoke with an

IRS agent on September 26, 2020, and Gohil believed the IRS considered him to

be another victim of Sah’s fraud. Id. ¶ 19; see also Hr’g. Ex. 1 (ECF No. 97).

      In June 2021, government prosecutors conferred with Gohil and his

attorney and Gohil agreed to assemble documents to help further the investigation.

Pet. of Pankaj L. Gohil ¶ 20. Petitioners assert that the government failed to follow

up and did not contact Gohil regarding efforts to recover any forfeited property,

including any funds deposited in Panin Hitech’s Indian bank accounts. See id.

Instead, Indian law enforcement sources contacted Gohil in mid-December with

new requests for information about the international transfers from Sah to Panin

Hitech. Id. ¶ 21; see also Hr’g. Ex. 2, 3. And on or about December 30, 2021, Gohil

learned that funds in Panin Hitech’s Indian bank accounts had been restrained.

Pet. of Pankaj L. Gohil ¶ 21. But Gohil did not know who restrained the funds—or

under what authority—or why the funds were no longer available. Id.

      In an effort to understand what had happened to Petitioners’ funds,

Petitioners’ counsel contacted government prosecutors on January 5, 2022. Id.

The various individuals involved in the communications have differing

recollections of their discussions, but the government apparently advised

Petitioners’ counsel that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had requested the

Indian government to seize Petitioners’ funds as forfeited property in this criminal

action. According to Petitioners, however, the government failed to adequately

                                          4

  Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22        Page 5 of 11 PageID 613



explain or describe what was effected pursuant to the government’s request, or

whether the funds had been seized pursuant to the government’s request or by the

Indian government on its own initiative. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. The government also refused

to confirm or deny that the seizure was pursuant to a United States court order,

and the government did not provide any records or other documents to assist

Petitioners’ counsel in identifying the legal basis for the seizure of Petitioners’

funds. Id. ¶ 21. Thus, in an attempt to learn more, Petitioners filed their petitions

under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n).

      The government moved the Court to dismiss the petitions as untimely

because they were not filed within 30 days of the date the government published

notice of the forfeiture order on the forfeiture website. The government did not

challenge the merits of the petition, but stated that “[i]f the Court does not dismiss

the petition[s], the Government will move to conduct discovery under Fed. R.

Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(B) regarding the merits of the petition.” Mot. 6, n.2 (ECF No.

88). The parties fully briefed the notice issue, and the Court held a hearing on the

government’s motions on May 2, 2022.

                                II.    Legal Standards

      “To obtain title to property through criminal forfeiture, the government

must give third parties a chance to assert competing interests in the property.”

United States v. Erpenbeck, 682 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

To do so, 21 U.S.C. § 853 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 prescribe a

two-track criminal-forfeiture procedure.

                                          5

  Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22         Page 6 of 11 PageID 614



      As soon as possible after a verdict or a guilty plea, a district court must enter

a “preliminary order of forfeiture,” which sets forth the amount of any money

forfeiture and lists any specific property to be forfeited. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b).

The court enters the preliminary order of forfeiture “without regard to any third

party’s interest in the property,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A), and that

preliminary order becomes final as to the defendant “[a]t sentencing—or at any

time before sentencing if the defendant consents[.]” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A).

      After the court enters the preliminary order, § 853(n) requires the

government to provide notice of the proceedings to third parties, giving them thirty

days to file a petition asserting their claims. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(1)-(2); 18 U.S.C. §

1963(l)(2). “If no one files a petition within the statutory time frame, ‘clear title’

vests in the United States, extinguishing all other parties’ interests in the property.”

Erpenbeck, 682 F.3d at 475 (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(7)). However, if any third

parties file a petition, the court considers whether they may have a superior

interest in the property using separate “ancillary proceedings.” Id. (citing §

853(n)(2)).

      Although these proceedings arise in a criminal context, they closely resemble

civil proceedings. United States v. Stone, 304 F. App’x 334, 335–36 (5th Cir. 2008)

(citing United States v. Corpus, 491 F.3d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 2007)). For example,

under Rule 32.2(c)(1), the court may, on a party’s motion, “dismiss the petition for

lack of standing, for failure to state a claim, or for any other lawful reason.” Fed. R.

Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(A). Motions to dismiss under this provision resemble motions

                                           6

  Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22       Page 7 of 11 PageID 615



under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), Pacheco v. Serendensky, 393 F.3d

348, 352 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted), and “the facts set forth in the petition

are assumed to be true.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(A). After disposing of any

motion under Rule 32.2(c)(1), the court may allow the parties to conduct discovery;

and after discovery ends, a party may move for summary judgment under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(c)(1)(B). After the ancillary

proceedings end, the court enters a final order of forfeiture that accounts for any

third-party rights. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(2).

      “Due process requires the government to provide ‘notice reasonably

calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the

pendency of’ a legal action that will determine their rights to property, and to

‘afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Erpenbeck, 682 F.3d at

476 (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314

(1950)). Under this “reasonably calculated” standard, the government must

“attempt to provide direct notice of the proceeding” to individuals or entities that

“the government knows or reasonably should know” are interested parties. Id.

(citations omitted).

      Various federal rules governing the forfeiture process codify the standard.

Under the Supplemental Rule for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset

Forfeiture Actions G(4)(b)(iii)(A), notice to third parties “must be sent by means

reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant.” And Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(6)(A) requires that where “the court orders the

                                          7

  Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22       Page 8 of 11 PageID 616



forfeiture of specific property, the government must publish notice of the order

and send notice to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant

with standing to contest the forfeiture in the ancillary proceeding.” The notice

“must describe the forfeited property, state the times under the applicable statute

when a petition contesting the forfeiture must be filed, and state the name and

contact information for the government attorney to be served with the petition.”

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(6)(B).

      Finally, while the government must attempt to provide direct notice, “[a]

potential claimant who had actual notice of a forfeiture action may not oppose or

seek relief from forfeiture because of the government’s failure to send the required

notice.” Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(v); Erpenbeck, 682 F.3d at 476 (citing United

States v. Puig, 419 F.3d 700, 703–04 (8th Cir. 2005)); United States v. One Star

Class Sloop Sailboat, 458 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2006) (“A putative claimant’s actual

knowledge of a forfeiture proceeding can defeat a subsequent due process

challenge, even if the government botches its obligation to furnish him with

notice.”).

                                    III.   Analysis

      In its Motions to Dismiss, the government argues that it published notice of

the Amended Preliminary Order of Forfeiture on August 27, 2021, and thus

Petitioners were required to file a petition within 30 days, or by September 27,

2021. But the facts alleged by Petitioners, which the court is obliged to accept as

true for purposes of the government’s Motions to Dismiss, Fed. R. Crim. P.

                                           8

  Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22      Page 9 of 11 PageID 617



32.2(c)(1)(A), are sufficient to show the government knew or reasonably should

have known that Petitioners would be interested parties with respect to the funds

Sah deposited in Panin Hitech’s Indian bank accounts. Thus, due process required

the government to attempt to provide Petitioners with direct notice of the

forfeiture. Erpenbeck, 682 F.3d at 475-76 (holding direct notice may be required

in addition to publication). Petitioners allege that they “[have] not received any

direct notice [of the forfeiture proceeding] from the Government.” Pet. of Pankaj

L. Gohil ¶ 21. And the government does not dispute that it did not provide—or even

attempt to provide—direct notice of the preliminary order of forfeiture to

Petitioners.

      In its reply, the government argues that the court should overlook its failure

to provide Petitioners with direct notice of the forfeiture proceeding because

Petitioners “admit in both their respective petitions and their response that they

had actual notice of the preliminary order of forfeiture in this case no later than

December 2021”—when Gohil learned that the funds in Panin Hitech’s Indian bank

accounts had been restrained. Reply 1 (ECF No. 95) (emphasis added). However,

this is not a fair characterization of Petitioners’ pleadings and briefs. Indeed,

Petitioners make no admission regarding actual notice of the preliminary order of

forfeiture and expressly deny that they were ever advised “that the government had

obtained a preliminary order of forfeiture which identified petitioners’ bank

accounts.” Pets.’ Resp. 3 (ECF No. 93).



                                          9

  Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22         Page 10 of 11 PageID 618



      At the hearing, the government modified its position slightly and argued that

Petitioners had actual notice of the forfeiture proceeding by January 5, 2022, at

the latest. But again, this is not a fair characterization of Petitioners’ pleadings and

briefs. Petitioners do not allege they had actual notice of any forfeiture proceeding

by the government on January 5, 2022. Rather, they state that “for the first time,”

on January 5, “the government advised a representative of the petitioners that the

U. S. Department of Justice had requested the government of India to seize

petitioner’s funds.” Pet. of Pankaj J. Gohil ¶ 20. But Petitioners also state:

      The government professed ignorance as to what was actually effected
      pursuant to their request, or whether funds had been seized pursuant
      to their request or by the Indian government on their own initiative.
      They would neither confirm nor deny that the seizure was pursuant to
      any United States court order. The government did not provide any
      records or other documents which would have assisted counsel in
      further identifying the legal basis for the seizure of petitioners’ bank
      accounts in India.

Id. Petitioners actually contend they are still in the dark about whether their funds

were restrained as a result of any legitimate action by the government. Id. at ¶¶ 20-

21. And the government appears to share some of that confusion. At the hearing,

Petitioners’ counsel produced an email from the government’s counsel advising

that, as of March 7, 2022, “[the government] has not seized these funds.” Hrg. Ex.

4.




                                          10

 Case 3:20-cr-00484-S Document 98 Filed 05/23/22     Page 11 of 11 PageID 619



                                 IV.    Conclusion

      The government’s Motions to Dismiss Gohil and Panin Hitech’s petitions for

an adjudication of interest in forfeited property (ECF Nos, 88, 89) are DENIED.

      SO ORDERED.

      May 23, 2022.
                                       ______________________________
                                       REBECCA RUTHERFORD
                                       UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE




                                        11

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.339361.98.0.pdf

Size

147,094 bytes

SHA-256

7c15e147c88ba968cc06a322f14da2ff8e0e6bc6d0cb6786cd57e74ddc5dc953

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.339361.98.0.pdf

Original

archive.org