Court filing
MEMORANDUM of USCA as to Martin Kao re 173 Notice of Appeal - Final… — PPP Attempt Conspiracy Legal Filings (Dkt. 186)
No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEK · Doc. 186 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK Document 186 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID.2256
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-2435
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:21-cr-00061-LEK-1
v. MEMORANDUM*
MARTIN KAO,
Defendant - Appellee,
----------------------------------------
TIFFANY JENNIFER LAM,
Interested Party - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 12, 2026**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: BYBEE, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case: 25-2435, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 1 of 4
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK Document 186 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID.2257
Appellant Tiffany Lam appeals the district court’s denial of her claim to
third party ownership interest in funds posted as bail to secure the pre-trial release
of her husband Martin Kao. She seeks to preclude the Government from applying
the bail funds to Kao’s restitution debt under 28 U.S.C. § 2044. We affirm the
district court’s decision.
We have jurisdiction to review Lam’s appeal of the district court’s final
decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s interpretation of
both federal and state law de novo. Conestoga Serv. Corp. v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc.
312 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2002); PSM Holding Corp. v. Nat’l Farm Fin. Corp.,
884 F. 3d 812, 820 (9th Cir. 2018).
Lam’s argument boils down to whether she has a vested ownership interest in
the bond money based on her oral marital contract in which she and Kao agreed to
treat all their jointly and individually held assets as part of their marital estate. There
is no dispute that 28 U.S.C. § 2044 prohibits the application of bond payments made
by “third part[ies]” to a defendant’s restitution debt. The question is whether Lam’s
purported ownership interest renders her a third party with a separate claim to some
portion of Kao’s bail money. The answer requires inquiry into whether Lam in fact
held any property rights with respect to the bank account from which the funds were
drawn.
2 25-2435
Case: 25-2435, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 2 of 4
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK Document 186 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID.2258
Under Hawaiʻi law, whether a spouse “owns” funds in a bank account is
governed by ordinary principles of property law. See Traders Travel Int’l, Inc. v.
Howser, 753 P.2d 244, 246–47 (Haw. 1988). A “married person may make contracts,
oral and written . . . with the married person’s spouse . . . in the same manner as if
the married person were sole.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-22(a). Thus, in Hawaiʻi
married couples may contract, even “regarding martial property rights.” Crofford v.
Adachi, 506 P.3d 182, 190 (Haw. 2022); see also Epp v. Epp, 905 P.2d 54, 61 (Haw.
Ct. App. 1995).
Here, Lam has not established that she has a property right to these funds, as
Kao was the sole owner of the account from which they were withdrawn. In Kao’s
affidavit, he attested to being the owner of the bail funds. Unlike property rights,
which run against third parties, contract rights run only against the parties to the
agreement. Compare Sylva v. Wailuku Sugar Co., 19 Haw. 681, 683–84. (1909)
(explaining that a property right is “a right availing against the world at large”
(citation omitted)), with Thomas v. State, 562 P.2d 425, 427 (Haw. 1977) (“[I]t is
axiomatic that one not a party to a stipulation may not be bound by it.”). Thus, the
oral agreement that Lam asserts she had with Kao was not an agreement giving Lam
property rights to the account.
Equitable distribution is the default avenue by which ownership rights may
vest between spouses in Hawaiʻi. See, e.g. Gordon v. Gordon, 350 P.3d 1008, 1017–
3 25-2435
Case: 25-2435, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 3 of 4
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK Document 186 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID.2259
18 (Haw. 2015) (describing Hawaiʻi’s equitable distribution approach); Epp, 902
P.2d at 62 (describing married spouses’ ability to modify Hawaiʻi’s default approach
to property division in divorce). But one spouse has no individual vested right to
property held by the other spouse unless and until the two are endeavoring to divide
their shared enterprise, namely, through a divorce proceeding. United States v. Real
Prop. Located at 148 Maunalanikai Place in Honolulu, Haw., 2008 WL 3166799, at
*8 (D. Haw. Aug. 6, 2008). Under this path to ownership, Lam’s particularized,
vested interest in Kao’s funds could only follow from a divorce trial in which a court
has reviewed evidence and allocated property accordingly. See Malek v. Malek, 768
P.2d 243, 246 (Haw. Ct. App. 1989). Thus, Lam has no claim to the bail funds that
are now in the Government’s possession.
The district court’s denial of Lam’s objection is AFFIRMED.
4 25-2435
Case: 25-2435, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 4 of 4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.hid.154418.186.0.pdf
- Size
- 1,439,283 bytes
- SHA-256
- 055f8401b9927597cfd9c2a6a90684f1ad96b21b1e9d2ccf66042e0cb66b9322
- Original
- www.justice.gov