Motion — United States v. Shibley (Dkt. 182, W.D. Wash. No. 2:20-cr-00174)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · No. 2:20-cr-00174-JCC · Doc. 182 · 2022-09-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

RESPONSE MOTION – Page 1 
Jones Legal Group, LLC 
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1711 
Seattle, WA 98101 
(206) 596-7878 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
              
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 
UNITED STATES, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
ERIC SHIBLEY, 
Defendant. 
 
No. 2:20-cr-00174-JCC 
 
(Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case Nos: 
22-30043 consolidated with 22-30113) 
 
STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT ERIC 
SHIBLEY IN RESPONSE TO 
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR FINAL 
ORDER OF FORFEITURE 
 
 
 
The government’s motion seeks a final order or forfeiture of five specifically 
identified bank accounts into which monies that Mr. Shibley tried to obtain by fraudulent 
schemes was placed by the five lenders who are the victims of Mr. Shibley’s schemes.  Mr. 
Shibley claims no right to legal ownership of the five accounts, or the monies deposited in 
those accounts.  Thus, Mr. Shibley has no basis to object to the order of forfeiture.   
Mr. Shibley, however, does have an interest in how those funds are distributed by the 
government.  Mr. Shibley’s pending appeal claims the monies in the five forfeited accounts 
should be restored to the lender victims and thus reduce Mr. Shibley’s restitution obligation.  
By not objecting to the entry of the final order of forfeiture, Mr. Shibley is not waiving any 
claims on appeal. 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 182     Filed 09/14/22     Page 1 of 2

 
RESPONSE MOTION – Page 2 
Jones Legal Group, LLC 
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1711 
Seattle, WA 98101 
(206) 596-7878 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
              
Further, Mr. Shibley is not seeking a stay pending appeal based on the government’s 
statement in its motion that not proceeding with entry of a final order “would impede 
application of any of the forfeited funds to victims.”  DKT 180 at p. 4.  That course of action 
is consistent with what the government should be doing.  Indeed, if the government does not 
intend to use the forfeiture to return monies taken from the lender victims, there is a 
significant problem with the government’s motion.  
As the Court ordered and the government concedes, it is obligated to give specific 
notice of the final order of forfeiture to persons who have a potential interest in the forfeiture.  
The five bank accounts at issue contain monies lawfully belonging to the five lender victims.  
The government has made no representation that it has given notice of the forfeiture to any of 
the five lender victims.  Such failure to provide notice is only appropriate if those forfeited 
funds are in fact going to be returned to the victim lenders. Otherwise, those victim lenders 
would have standing to object to the forfeiture of assets to which they have legal title.  That is 
especially true here where Mr.  Shibley has filed for bankruptcy and there is no assurance that 
the victim lenders otherwise will have their losses paid. 
 
 
 
 
DATED this 14th Day of September 2022. 
 
 
Respectfully submitted. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Cynthia B. Jones 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cynthia B. Jones, WSBA No. 38120 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jones Legal Group, LLC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1200 Fifth Ave, Suite 1711 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Seattle, WA  98101 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Telephone: (206) 596-7878 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mobile: (206) 972-4943 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cjones@joneslegalgroup.net 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Eric Shibley 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 182     Filed 09/14/22     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.182.0.pdf

Size

123,375 bytes

SHA-256

9c2341ae2c2a8f3050e7c55b21e300879e31adb0a3e57295e463c76679775192

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.182.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)