Letter Opinion — United States v. Jhong (Dkt. 67, D.N.J.)

Summary

In this letter opinion filed March 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the District of New Jersey granted the Government's motion to dismiss a petition by John Jhong and Anne, Catherine and Christopher Jhong over property subject to a forfeiture order in Criminal Action No. 22-852. The opinion recounts that Jhong was charged on December 22, 2022 with bank fraud, stemming from allegations of fraudulently receiving $2,169,886 in PPP loans, and pled guilty to the bank fraud charge; the information identified funds seized from approximately 14 bank accounts totaling approximately $1,865,899.19. The court found that the Defendant is barred from the proceeding and that the family had not shown they independently filed or prepared the petition. The petition also did not detail the time and circumstances under which the Petitioners acquired their interests in the funds.

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 2:22-cr-00852-SDW            Document 67       Filed 03/28/25      Page 1 of 3 PageID: 627




NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                        DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


           CHAMBERS OF                                                MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
     SUSAN D. WIGENTON                                                        50 WALNUT ST.
   UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE                                              NEWARK, NJ 07101
                                                                                973-645-5903

                                          March 28, 2025

John Jhong
45288-053
Canaan
U.S. Penitentiary
P.O. Box 200
Waymart, PA 18472
Pro se Defendant on behalf of all Petitioners

Peter A. Laserna
Assistant United States Attorney
970 Broad Street, Suite 700
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for the United States

             LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT

       Re:     United States of America v. John Jhong,
               Criminal Action No. 22-852

Parties:

        Before this Court is a petition by Defendant John Jhong, Anne Jhong, Catherine Jhong, and
Christopher Jhong (collectively, “Petitioners”) related to specific property that is the subject of a
forfeiture order, and the Government’s motion to dismiss the petition. For the reasons stated
herein, the Government’s Motion is GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED.

BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       On December 22, 2022, the Defendant was charged in an information with bank fraud,
among other charges, stemming from allegations that Defendant fraudulently received $2,169,886
in Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans, which was disbursed to family members’ bank
accounts. (D.E. 34.) The information contained forfeiture allegations, which informed the
Defendant that, upon conviction, he “shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United
States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A), any property, real or personal, constituting, or derived from,
proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the offense charged in Count One . . . ” (Id.
at 9.) This section specifically identified funds that were seized from approximately 14 bank
accounts totaling approximately $1,865,899.19. (Id. at 9–10.)

Case 2:22-cr-00852-SDW             Document 67          Filed 03/28/25      Page 2 of 3 PageID: 628




        On or about December 22, 2022, the Defendant pled guilty to the bank fraud charge. (See
D.E. 36; 38.) As part of his plea agreement with the Government, the Defendant consented to the
forfeiture of all funds traceable to the bank fraud and specifically agreed to forfeit the funds that
were seized from the 14 bank accounts listed in the information. (D.E. 38 at 4–5; 12.) This Court
entered a Consent Judgment and Order of Forfeiture and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to
Specific Property on or about November 15, 2023. (D.E. 48.) Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b), a Notice of Forfeiture was filed with the Court on
May 1, 2024. (D.E. 55.) The Government sent copies of this Notice of Forfeiture and the
Preliminary Order of Forfeiture to Petitioners on the same date. (D.E. 66-2 at 3.) On May 28,
2024, the Defendant filed the Petition, which consists of a Notice of Filing (D.E. 56), a
Memorandum in Support (D.E. 56-1), and certifications from Defendant (D.E. 56-2), Defendant’s
wife Anne (D.E. 56-3), and each of their two children, Christopher (D.E. 56-4) and Catherine (56-
5), along with several exhibits. (D.E. 56-6.)

DISCUSSION

        Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2), “[a]ny person, other than the defendant, asserting a legal
interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States . . . may . . . petition the
court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property.” “The petition
shall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury and shall set forth the nature and extent
of the petitioner’s right, title, or interest in the property, the time and circumstances of the
petitioner’s acquisition of the right, title, or interest in the property, any additional facts supporting
the petitioner’s claim, and the relief sought.” 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3). In an ancillary proceeding
such as this, “the court may, on motion, dismiss the petition for lack of standing, for failure to state
a claim, or for any other lawful reason. For purposes of the motion, the facts set forth in the petition
are assumed to be true.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(A). Here, the petition is dismissed on two
independent grounds.

         First, the Defendant himself is expressly barred from participating in this proceeding. The
forfeiture order was final with respect to the Defendant at the time of sentencing, and Defendant
does not have any standing at this point to object. See United States v. Pelullo, 178 F.3d 196, 202
(3d Cir. 1999) (holding that a defendant “generally has no standing to participate in the ancillary
proceeding that takes place after the forfeiture order is entered at sentencing.”) Thus, to the extent
Defendant attempts to position himself as a petitioner, his claim is easily denied. As for
Defendant’s family, the Government has submitted a sworn affidavit that states that Anne Jhong,
Defendant’s wife, told a government agent that the Petition was completed and signed by
Defendant. The affidavit further states that, while Anne Jhong did authorize Defendant to
complete the Petition, she did not really understand what the documents were about other than an
effort to recover some of the seized funds. The Petitioners have not disputed this version of events.
Because Defendant is barred from this proceeding, and the Petitioners have not demonstrated that
they independently filed or prepared the petition, dismissal is warranted on this ground alone.

          Second, even if Defendant’s family had filed without Defendant’s involvement, the petition
still falls short of presenting a claim for relief. At most, each of the affidavits state generally that
the bank accounts in question existed before Defendant’s wrongdoing in the family member’s



                                                    2

Case 2:22-cr-00852-SDW           Document 67         Filed 03/28/25     Page 3 of 3 PageID: 629




names and that the petitioners were unaware of the wrongdoing. However, the mere fact that the
accountholders may not have known that the funds were traceable to wrongdoing is irrelevant to
this Court’s analysis, as the Government “can forfeit and go after criminal earnings wherever they
may be stashed—even in the hands of third parties.” United States v. Hallinan, 75 F.4th 148, 150
(3d Cir. 2023). As the Government correctly notes, the petition does not adequately detail “the
time and circumstances” under which the Petitioners acquired their interests in the funds, which
are “not simply technical requirements, but are construed strictly to discourage false or frivolous
claims.” United States v. Preston, 123 F. Supp. 3d 117, 125 (D.D.C. 2015) (internal quotations
omitted).

        Accordingly, because the undisputed evidence shows that Defendant improperly prepared
the petition on his family’s behalf and because the petition itself fails to state a claim to relief,
dismissal is warranted.

CONCLUSION

        For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the
petition is DISMISSED. An appropriate order follows.


                                                      ___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton___
                                                      SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

Orig: Clerk
cc:   Parties




                                                 3

File and source

File

67.pdf

Size

156,775 bytes

SHA-256

42bdfba995492ef15bab9de4ab84d35b9a75c971e31b6558933bccc01cf921c1

Our copy

67.pdf