Defendant’s Response to the United States’ Motion for a Preliminary Order of Forefeiture with Suggestions — United States v. Reazuddin (Dkt. 53, W.D. Mo.)

Summary

Defendant Mirza Michael Reazuddin's response to the United States' motion for a preliminary order of forfeiture in United States v. Mirza Michael Reazuddin, Case No. 23-cr-00067-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, filed June 3, 2024 as Document 53. It states that he bought the real property in June 2021 for $925,000 and made $145,000 of upgrades that likely raised its value above $1,000,000, while his total restitution under the plea agreement is $804,100. It argues that restitution is compensatory and limited to the actual loss, and responds on that basis to the forfeiture of the property.

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


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.                                                             Case No. 23-cr-00067-BP


MIRZA MICHAEL REAZUDDIN,
Defendant.


              DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO THE UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR A
              PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FOREFEITURE WITH SUGGESTIONS



              Defendant Mirza Michael Reazuddin by and through his Counsel hereby files his

response to the motion of United States for a preliminary order of forfeiture with supporting

suggestions and states as follows:

              1. The real property was acquired the property in June 2021 for $925,000. During

2021 and 2022, defendant did $145,000 of upgrades to the property by completing the basement,

updating the kitchen and bathroom, installing window shutters, renovating the deck, and

interior/exterior paint work. These upgrades likely increased value of the property in excess of

$1,000,000. Defendant's total restitution indebtedness as per the plea agreement is $804,100. A

part of the purchase price, as well as the funds used for the upgrade were personal funds that

have no nexus to the proceeds derived from defendant's offenses and therefore not subject to any

forfeiture.

              2. Since the value of the forfeited property likely exceeds Defendant's total

restitution indebtedness there will be an offset in favor of the defendant since "[a] victim's total




              Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 53 Filed 06/03/24 Page 1 of 4

aggregate recovery... shall not exceed the full amount of the victim's demonstrated loss", 18

U.S.C. 2259(c). In the instant case, the amount of loss is $804,100. Restitution is compensatory,

not punitive, and in a fraud case it is limited to the actual loss directly caused by the Defendant's

criminal conduct in the course of the scheme alleged in the indictment. United States v.

Lundstrom, 880 F.3d. 423,446 (8th Cir. 2018), United States v. Chaika, 695 F.3d. 741,748 (8th

Cir. 2012). The amount of the restitution cannot exceed the actual provable loss realized by the

victim. United States v. Martinez, 690 F.3d. 1083,1088 (8th Cir. 2012), United States v.

Gammell, 932 F.3d. 1175,1180 (8th Cir. 2019). Once victim's provable loss has been fully

satisfied, defendant is entitled to an offset against the funds recovered from the sale of the

forfeited collateral. United States v. Ruff, 420 F.3d. 772,775 (8th Cir 2005) (remanding trial court

to determine if defendant could establish right to offset). United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d.

1112,1127 (10th Cir. 2007).

       3. The Defendant, on his own accord, has also filed a Lis Pendens in favor of the United

States in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, File No. 9842846177. He also,

simultaneously executed a Quit Claim Deed in favor of the United States conveying all of his

interests to the United States Government in an effort to demonstrate extraordinary acceptance of

responsibility and to make full restitution as soon as possible.

       4. The Defendant asks, due to the high value of the property, that sale of the forfeited real

estate in a commercially reasonable manner as to maximize its sale potential.




           Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 53 Filed 06/03/24 Page 2 of 4

       WHERETOFORE, defendant requests that this court will issue the preliminary

forfeiture order, doing so in a commercially reasonable manner and not allow for restitution

greater than the actual loss to the victim.

                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                    ________________________________
                                                    David McDonald, KS#24434, MO#74073
                                                    100 East Park Street – Suite 8
                                                    Olathe, KS 66061
                                                    Ph: (913) 210-0844
                                                    dave@riveralawoffice.com
                                                    Attorney for the Defendant




           Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 53 Filed 06/03/24 Page 3 of 4

                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I, David McDonald, hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Response was
served on the prosecution, by electronic the date of filing.


                                          ___________________________________
                                          David McDonald




          Case 4:23-cr-00067-BP Document 53 Filed 06/03/24 Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

53.pdf

Size

220,682 bytes

SHA-256

1c743ede611133a5647c85ff9eee49ce97128c3af77a0791831bcc2547bc217a

Our copy

53.pdf