Full text
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Court File No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v.
AIMEE MARIE BOCK, et al., FEEDING OUR FUTURE’S THIRD-PARTY
PETITION UNDER 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)
Defendants.
_______________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Feeding Our Future (hereinafter “FOF”), respectfully submits this petition
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) seeking the exclusion of the $3,506,066.80 seized from Bank of
America business checking account No. 37400463156, which was opened and held in the name of
account owner Feeding Our Future DBA Teaching Our Future (hereinafter the “BoA Account”) in
whole or in part, from the criminal forfeiture order against Aimee Marie Bock (hereinafter the
“Defendant”). FOF was not charged as a criminal defendant by the United States Government, is
not a party to the underlying criminal case, and asserts a legally recognized interest in the funds
seized from the BoA Account independent of the Defendant.
As detailed herein, FOF is entitled to relief for three principal reasons. First, FOF holds a
superior legal interest in the funds held in the BoA Account that takes precedence over any
forfeiture claim. Second, FOF is an innocent third party and a victim of the Defendant’s unlawful
conduct. Third, any attempt to treat the funds held in the BoA Account as forfeitable based on an
alter ego theory is unsupported by the evidence and legally improper.
1
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 15
This petition is filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), which provides the exclusive
mechanism for third parties to adjudicate ownership interests in property subject to criminal
forfeiture. FOF timely files this petition within the statutory 30-day period following notice of the
forfeiture proceedings and seeks a determination that it holds a superior legal interest in the Bank
of America account (hereinafter the “BoA Account”) under § 853(n)(6)(A), requiring exclusion of
that property from forfeiture.
JURISDICTION AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
This Court has jurisdiction over this ancillary proceeding under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Section
853(n) governs the adjudication of third-party claims to forfeited property and provides the sole
procedure by which a non-defendant may assert a legal interest in such property. A petition must
be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of the forfeiture order, and FOF’s petition is
timely filed.
Under § 853(n)(6)(A), the Court shall amend the forfeiture order if the petitioner
establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that it held a legal interest in the property superior
to that of the defendant at the time of the acts giving rise to forfeiture. As set forth below, FOF
satisfies this standard and is entitled to exclusion of the $3,506,066.80 seized from the BoA
Account in forfeiture.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. FOF’S ORGANIZATION AND LEGITIMATE OPERATIONS
FOF is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and separate legal entity that legitimately
operated pursuant to its charitable purpose between November 2016 and at least April 2020.
Exhibit 1. FOF has no owners and is governed by its Board of Directors in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 317A. The organization maintained its own financial accounts and
2
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 3 of 15
records, including a bank account with Azlo (hereinafter the “Azlo Account”), which was opened
in September 2018. Exhibit 2-3. The Azlo Account was opened and held in FOF’s name, funded
by legitimate sources, and used to support FOF’s operations and programming. Exhibit 4. As a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation, these funds were collected and held by FOF for a charitable
purpose, and such funds thus constituted a charitable trust stewarded by FOF’s Board of Directors
as trustees. See Minn. Stat. § 501B.35, Subd. 2-4.
Defendant was an employee and agent of FOF, serving for a time as FOF’s paid Executive
Director. Although Defendant is also the founder of the organization, FOF is a separate legal entity
with all the powers and rights afforded to it by Minn. Stat. § 317A.161, and neither Defendant’s
founding role or employment confers to her ownership or entitlement to the organization’s assets.
Furthermore, Defendant’s authority was limited to acting on behalf of FOF in furtherance of
organizational purposes and subject to Board oversight. Any actions outside that authority were
not approved by FOF’s Board of Directors.
Shortly before Defendant began engaging in unauthorized and fraudulent conduct, the total
funds in FOF’s Azlo Account totaled $46,060.90. Exhibit 5. In or about October 2020, the BoA
Account was opened in FOF’s name. Exhibit 6. Thereafter, it appears funds were transferred from
FOF’s Azlo Account to its BoA Account, including transfers totaling approximately $60,000.
Exhibits 6 and 7. As previously noted, these funds originated from FOF’s Azlo Account, which
was funded, at least in part, by legitimate sources and used for organizational purposes.
Accordingly, at least a portion of the funds deposited into the BoA Account can be directly traced
to legitimate funds belonging to FOF.
During this period, FOF continued to use the Azlo Account for ordinary business
operations, including payroll and vendor payments, while transitioning banking activity to the BoA
3
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 4 of 15
Account. Exhibits 7 and 8. The Azlo Account balance declined over time and was reduced to $0
by March 31, 2021. Exhibit 8.
The Indictment alleges that Defendant began engaging in criminal conduct in or about April
2020. To be clear, at no time did FOF’s Board of Directors authorize or approve Defendant to
engage in any fraudulent or unlawful conduct. FOF did not knowingly contribute to, participate
in, or benefit from the conduct underlying the forfeiture allegations, and it had no knowledge of
the Defendant’s actions prior to their discovery. Upon discovery of the misconduct, FOF
terminated Defendant’s employment and took steps to mitigate further harm. Exhibit 9. FOF has
not been compensated for its losses by the Defendant or any other source, and FOF has no
alternative means of recovery, as the funds seized from the BoA Account represent the
organization’s primary and only remaining asset.
On or about February 23, 2022, FOF’s Board of Directors voted to begin the voluntary
dissolution process pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 317A.721. Exhibit 10. FOF is currently in the process
of voluntary supervised dissolution (see Court File No. 19HA-CV-22-657; Exhibit 11) and requires
funds to satisfy outstanding liabilities, including administrative expenses, legitimate third-party
vendor obligations, costs of collateral litigation (see Court File No. 62-CV-23-863; Exhibit 12),
and other costs necessary to complete an orderly wind-down in accordance with Minn. Stat.
§§ 317A.741 to 317A.765. With one exception as described more fully below, FOF lacks access
to operating funds in order to facilitate that dissolution.
On April 24, 2022, FOF submitted a claim to the $3,506,066.80 in funds seized from FOF’s
BoA Account, amongst other physical property. Exhibit 13.
On July 13, 2022, in Court File No. 19HA-CV-22-657, the Dakota County District Court
issued an Order granting FOF’s motion for cy pres and supervised release of $72,351.03 in funds
4
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 5 of 15
raised through a GoFundMe campaign. Exhibit 14. In the Order, the Court made important judicial
findings relevant to FOF’s current petition, including:
1.) ¶ 24: “In order to carry out the terns of the Court’s April 11, 2022 Order for Supervised
Voluntary Dissolution, Feeding Our Future will require financial resources, which it will
not have access without a Court order for cy pres and supervised release of funds. The
Court finds that the expenses necessary to carry out the Court’s Order are administrative
overhead expenses.”
2.) ¶ 25: “The dissolution process involves…, satisfying the costs of dissolution (including
attorney fees and disbursements), and paying legitimate claims of vendors and creditors.
Here, there exists a large number of innocent third parties who engaged in arms-length
transactions with Feeding Our Future. To the extent possible, those vendors and creditors
should be allowed to make claims and be paid.”
The Court ordered $72,351.03 to be held in Legal for Good’s trust account (as counsel for FOF)
and “administered only after notice to the [Minnesota Attorney General’s Office] and pursuant
to this Court’s direction and spent only after specific court authorization in accordance with
Minn. Stat. § 317A.735, subd. 1.” Id. The United States Department of Justice was notified of
the proceedings and given a copy of the Order.
To date, the Dakota County District Court has authorized $64,002.42 to be distributed for
dissolution purposes in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 317A.735, subd. 1, on the following dates:
1.) $32,089.98 per Order issued on November 29, 2022, 2.) $9,278.45 per Order issued on
February 6, 2023, and 3.) $22,633.99 per Order issued on July 22, 2024. Exhibit 15. A sum of
$9,021.41 remains in Legal for Good’s trust account for FOF. Aside from these funds, FOF has
no other access to money to satisfy its financial responsibilities.
In conjunction with the dissolution process, legal counsel has reviewed FOF’s obligations
and has identified appropriately $133,786 in legitimate dissolution claims that must be satisfied.
Exhibit 16. Dissolution claims totaling approximately $2.5 million were denied as invalid or not
5
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 6 of 15
owed by FOF. Id. Additionally, Legal for Good’s work in progress related to FOF’s dissolution
process is approximately $24,500, spanning the period from April 19, 2024 to present. Exhibit 17.
On December 30, 2025, the Honorable Nancy E. Brasel issued a Preliminary Order for
Forfeiture in Court File Number 22-CR-223 (1) (NEB/DTS) forfeiting the funds from FOF’s
BoA Account. FOF received notice of the Order on March 18, 2026. Exhibit 18.
ARGUMENT
I. FOF HAS A SUPERIOR LEGAL INTEREST IN THE BOA ACCOUNT AND THE
FUNDS HELD THEREIN UNDER 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A).
Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), “[a]ny person, other than the defendant, asserting a legal interest
in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States pursuant to this section
may…petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the
property.” 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2). The term “legal interest in the property” encompasses “all legally
protected rights, claims, titles, or shares in real or personal property.” United States v. Reckmeyer,
836 F.2d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 1987).
A. Minnesota Law Confirms FOF’s Ownership of the BoA Account
The law’s requirement that a third-party claimant in forfeiture proceedings have a legal
interest imposes a statutory-standing requirement on claimants. Thus, “a party seeking to challenge
the government’s forfeiture of money or property used in violation of federal law must first
demonstrate [a legal] interest in the seized item sufficient to satisfy the court of its standing to
contest the forfeiture.” United States v. Three Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty
Dollars ($364,960.00) in U.S. Currency, 661 F.2d 319, 326 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. One
1945 Douglas C-54 (DC-4) Aircraft, 604 F.2d 27 (8th Cir. 1979). Because a legal interest is required
to bring a claim under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2), a court must first look to the law of the jurisdiction
6
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 7 of 15
that created the property right to determine whether the claimant has a valid interest. United States
v. Bearden, 328 F.3d 1011, 1013 (8th Cir. 2003).
Under Minnesota law, a nonprofit corporation is a distinct legal entity that owns its own
property, including its bank accounts. Minn. Stat. § 317A.161, Subd. 4 (“A corporation may buy,
lease, acquire, own, hold, improve, use, and deal in and with, real or personal property, or an
interest in property, wherever located”). Additionally, the “business and affairs” of a nonprofit
corporation are managed by or under the direction of its board of directors. Minn. Stat. § 317A.201
(“The business and affairs of a [nonprofit] corporation must be managed by or under the direction
of a board of directors.”).
Minnesota case law and statutes consistently recognize that a bank account constitutes a
contractual relationship between the depositor and the financial institution. See e.g., Minn. Stat.
§ 524.6-201, subd. 2; Minn. Stat. § 336.4-104(a)(1); In re Guardianship of Setterberg, 2001 Minn.
App. LEXIS 65 (2001); Lerbakken v. Twin City Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 230 N.W.2d 596
(Minn. 1975). Accordingly, as the named account holder and depositor, FOF holds the exclusive
legal authority to control and direct disposition of funds deposited into the BoA Account. This
statutory framework confirms that control over nonprofit assets, including bank accounts, rests
with the corporate entity acting through its board of directors.
To the extent the Defendant had access to, or temporary authority over, the BoA Account,
such authority does not confer to her any ownership interest. Minnesota law expressly
distinguishes between authority to act and beneficial ownership. Where an account includes an
agency designation, an authorized agent “has no beneficial right to sums on deposit.” Minn. Stat.
§ 524.6-203(c). Thus, even if the Defendant had signatory authority or exercised control over the
BoA Account, such access is legally insufficient to establish ownership. The funds remain the
7
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 8 of 15
property of FOF as the account holder. Accordingly, Minnesota law confirms FOF’s ownership of
the BoA Account.
B. FOF Has a Superior Interest in the Funds Contained in the BoA Account Pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 853(n)(6).
If a court determines the claimant in forfeiture proceedings has an interest in the property
under the law of the jurisdiction that created the property right, then at the ancillary hearing, the
court must next look to federal law to determine if the claimant will prevail in the ancillary
proceeding. There are two grounds on which to prevail at an ancillary hearing. The claimant must
either demonstrate 1.) priority of ownership at the time of the offense under § 853(n)(6)(A), or 2.)
that he subsequently acquired the property as a bona fide purchaser for value under § 853(n)(6)(B).
United States v. Watkins, 320 F3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 853(n)(6)(A) &
(B)).
Section 853(n)(6)(A) – the first ground related to priority of ownership – applies here and
embodies the relation-back doctrine. Under the relation-back doctrine, title to the forfeited
property vests in the United States at the time of the defendant’s criminal act. Nevertheless, a third
party who had a legal interest in the forfeited property before the underlying crime was committed
can prevail in the ancillary proceeding on the ground that they had an interest in the property before
the government’s interest vested. United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119, 1129 (9th Cir. 2005).
FOF satisfies the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A) because it held a legal interest
in the funds contained within the BoA Account, which were collected by FOF prior to the
Defendant’s criminal conduct and therefore prior to the vesting of any interest in the United States.
As noted above, the record establishes that FOF’s ownership interest in the funds predates
the Defendant’s alleged criminal conduct. The Azlo Account, which was opened in September
2018, was held in FOF’s name, funded by legitimate sources, and used to support FOF’s operations
8
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 9 of 15
and programming. As a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, these funds were collected and held by
FOF for a charitable purpose, and such funds thus constituted a charitable trust stewarded by FOF’s
Board of Directors as trustees. See Minn. Stat. § 501B.35, Subd. 2-4. To the extent funds in the
BoA Account are traceable to the Azlo Account, those funds originated from FOF and include
amounts that indisputably predate the alleged criminal conduct. As of January 1, 2020 – prior to
the onset of Defendant’s criminal activity – the account held $46,060.90. The Indictment alleges
that the Defendant’s criminal conduct began in or about April 2020. In October 2020, the BoA
Account was opened in FOF’s name. Thereafter, it appears funds were transferred from FOF’s Azlo
Account to the BoA Account, including transfers totaling approximately $60,000. These funds
originated from FOF’s Azlo Account, which was funded, at least in part, by legitimate sources and
used for organizational purposes. Accordingly, at a minimum, FOF’s ownership of the Azlo Account
and its funds as of January 1, 2020 establishes a superior legal interest in those funds under
§ 853(n)(6)(A).
Moreover, FOF continued to use the Azlo Account for ordinary operational expenses,
including payroll, while apparently transitioning all its banking activities to the BoA Account. The
balance of the Azlo Account gradually declined, and by March 31, 2021, the account had been
reduced to a balance of $0. Accordingly, at least a portion of the funds in the BoA Account can be
directly traced to legitimate funds belonging to FOF and FOF’s legal interest is superior to that of
the Defendant and is not extinguished by the relation-back doctrine.
C. At a Minimum, FOF is Entitled to Exclusion of Funds Traceable to Its Pre-Offense Property;
Commingling Does Not Eliminate FOF’s Superior Legal Interest.
Even if the Court determines that some portion of the funds held in the BoA Account may
be subject to forfeiture, the Court should, at a minimum, exclude from forfeiture those funds in
which FOF has established a superior legal interest. As discussed above, FOF held $46,060.90 in
9
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 10 of 15
its Azlo Account prior to the onset of the alleged criminal conduct. To the extent these funds were
transferred into the BoA Account, they remain traceable to FOF and retain their character as non-
forfeitable property.
Commingling of legitimate and allegedly tainted funds does not automatically render all
funds forfeitable. The Eighth Circuit has emphasized that forfeitures are disfavored and must be
strictly confined to property traceable to unlawful conduct. United States v. Premises Known as
7725 Unity Ave. N., 294 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2002). Where legitimate funds are commingled with
allegedly tainted funds, the government retains the burden to establish a sufficient evidentiary
nexus showing that forfeitable funds are actually traceable to criminal activity. United States v.
Bornfield, 145 F.3d 1123, 1135 (10th Cir. 1998). Courts in this District have likewise held that
commingling limits, rather than eliminates, the government’s forfeiture interest, such that
forfeiture is appropriate only to the extent funds are traceable to tainted sources. United States v.
216 Kenmore Ave., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (D. Minn. 2009). These principles confirm that
commingling does not extinguish FOF’s ownership interest, nor does it relieve the government of
its burden to trace forfeitable funds with specificity. At a minimum, FOF is entitled to exclusion
of funds traceable to its pre-offense balance of $46,060.90, which indisputably predates the alleged
criminal conduct and constitutes FOF property under § 853(n)(6)(A).
To the extent the government contends that tracing is impracticable due to commingling,
the appropriate remedy is substitute asset forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), which applies only
to property of the Defendant and does not authorize forfeiture of property belonging to a third
party.
10
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 11 of 15
II. FOF IS NOT THE DEFENDANT’S ALTER EGO AND ITS SEPARATE LEGAL
EXISTENCE MUST BE RESPECTED.
The government may attempt to justify forfeiture of the funds seized from the BoA
Account by treating FOF as the Defendant’s alter ego. Any such theory is unsupported by the facts
presented at trial and legally inapplicable in this ancillary proceeding.
As an initial matter, the inquiry under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) focuses on whether the petitioner
has a legal interest in the property that is superior to the Defendant’s interest. The statute does not
authorize forfeiture of property owned by a separate legal entity based on generalized allegations
of control or association. Accordingly, alter ego or veil-piercing concepts are not a substitute for
the required showing that the Defendant held a forfeitable interest in the property.
Even if alter ego principles are considered by this Court, the standard is not met in this
case. Under Minnesota law, veil piercing requires a showing that the entity is a mere
instrumentality of the individual, such that its separate existence has been disregarded through
complete domination of finances, policy, and business practices. Hoyt Props., Inc. v. Prod. Res.
Grp., LLC, 736 N.W.2d 313, 318 (Minn. 2007); Victoria Elevator Co. v. Meriden Grain Co., 283
N.W.2d 509, 512 (Minn. 1979). This is a demanding standard and is not satisfied by the mere fact
that an individual serves as a founder, officer, or employee of the organization.
FOF is, and at all relevant times was, a nonprofit organization with its own governance
structure, operations, and financial records. It maintained separate bank accounts in its own name
and was governed by a board of directors. FOF is a separate legal entity with all the powers and
rights afforded to it by Minn. Stat. § 317A.161, and neither Defendant’s founding role or
employment confers to her ownership or entitlement to the organization’s assets. While the
Defendant served for a time as the paid Executive Director of FOF, her authority to act on behalf
of the organization did not confer upon her any ownership interest in FOF’s assets. To the contrary,
11
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 12 of 15
as described above, Minnesota law distinguishes between authority to act and beneficial ownership,
and an agent’s access to or control over organizational accounts does not establish a personal
property interest in those funds.
Rather than acting in furtherance of FOF’s interests, the Defendant engaged in unauthorized
and fraudulent conduct without the knowledge or approval of FOF’s Board of Directors. Upon
discovery of this conduct, FOF promptly terminated the Defendant and took steps to mitigate further
harm. These facts further underscore that the Defendant was acting outside the scope of her
authority and adverse to the organization’s interests.
There is no evidence that FOF was operated entirely as a sham entity or that its separate
existence was disregarded. Nor is there evidence that FOF was subject to the type of complete
domination required to pierce the corporate veil. At most, the record reflects that the Defendant
abused her position within a nonprofit organization—conduct that does not transform FOF into her
alter ego.
Permitting forfeiture on an alter ego theory under these circumstances would improperly
collapse the distinction between a nonprofit entity and an individual employee, exposing innocent
organizations to forfeiture based solely on the misconduct of a rogue actor. Such a result is
inconsistent with both the statutory framework of § 853(n) and fundamental principles of corporate
separateness.
Accordingly, the Court should reject any alter ego theory and recognize FOF’s separate
legal existence and its ownership of the account.
III. FORFEITURE WOULD IMPROPERLY PENALIZE FOF
The purpose of 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) is to protect the rights of innocent third parties who hold
legitimate interests in property subject to criminal forfeiture. Congress enacted the ancillary
12
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 13 of 15
proceeding mechanism to ensure that forfeiture does not unjustly deprive non-culpable parties of
their property interests. 21 U.S.C. § 853, § 32.2.2 Comment and History of Rule.
FOF, and its legitimate vendors and creditors, is precisely the type of third party § 853(n) is
designed to protect. FOF is an independent nonprofit organization with a legitimate mission,
separate legal existence, and no involvement in the Defendant’s alleged criminal conduct. FOF is
not a wrongdoer in the underlying offense; rather, it is a victim of the Defendant’s unauthorized
and fraudulent actions.
FOF did not knowingly participate in, benefit from, or facilitate the conduct giving rise to
the forfeiture. To the contrary, once the misconduct was discovered, FOF’s Board of Directors
promptly terminated the Defendant and took steps to mitigate further harm. Despite this, FOF has
been left without access to its operating funds and is unable to meet its financial obligations or
complete an orderly dissolution. Forfeiture of FOF’s property would therefore compound, rather
than remedy, the harm caused by the Defendant’s conduct. It would effectively shift the
consequences of the Defendant’s wrongdoing onto a nonprofit organization, contrary to the
remedial purpose of the statute. Accordingly, § 853(n) requires recognition and protection of FOF’s
superior legal interest in the account and precludes forfeiture of property belonging to a non-
culpable third party.
IV. THE GOVERNMENT’S ATTEMPT TO CREDIT THE FUNDS HELD WITHIN
THE BOA ACCOUNT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT’S MONEY JUDGMENT
IMPROPERLY COLLAPSES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT
AND FOF.
Because the Defendant did not own or have a beneficial interest in the BoA Account or its
funds, it is improper to include FOF’s $3,506,066.80 as part of a money judgment forfeiture against
Defendant. A forfeiture money judgment represents the value of proceeds that the defendant
personally obtained from the offense. United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071 (2006); United States
13
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 14 of 15
v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235 (2011); United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216 (2013). It is a personal
in personam judgment against the defendant and does not operate as a mechanism to reach or
satisfy third-party property interests.
Here, however, the government seeks to forfeit funds from FOF’s bank account—property
owned by a separate legal entity—and simultaneously apply its value toward satisfaction of the
Defendant’s personal forfeiture money judgment. This approach improperly collapses the
distinction between the Defendant and FOF. The government cannot use property owned by a non-
party to satisfy a defendant’s money judgment. To permit such a result would effectively require
an innocent third party to bear the financial consequences of the Defendant’s alleged criminal
conduct, contrary to the statutory structure of criminal forfeiture and the protections afforded to
third parties under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n).
Moreover, the government’s position necessarily presupposes that FOF’s assets are
functionally indistinguishable from the Defendant’s personal assets. By crediting the value of the
funds seized from FOF’s BoA Account against the Defendant’s forfeiture obligation, the
government is treating organizational property as if it were owned by the Defendant,
notwithstanding the absence of any finding of alter ego, veil piercing, or personal ownership. As
set forth above, FOF is a separate legal entity with its own governance, accounts, and operations,
and the Defendant held no ownership interest in its assets. For these reasons, the government’s
attempt to apply the funds seized from the BoA Account toward the Defendant’s personal
forfeiture in not proper under the circumstances.
14
Docusign Envelope ID: C3B028AE-8D2D-8914-8397-A4C1E7BF4B74
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 837 Filed 04/17/26 Page 15 of 15
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Feeding Our Future respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Amend the Preliminary Order for Forfeiture to exclude the $3,506,066.80 seized from
Bank of America account No. 374004673156, held in the name of Feeding Our Future
DBA Teaching Our Future on the grounds that it is the property of Petitioner and not the
Defendant;
2. In the alternative, order that the Court exclude from forfeiture at least $46,060.90 –
representing funds traceable to Petitioner’s pre-offense property – or such greater amount
as the evidence establishes; and
3. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
LEGAL FOR GOOD PLLC
Dated: April 16, 2026 By: ______________________
Jennifer L. Urban, Esq. (0390708)
5353 Gamble Dr., Suite 320
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 612-284-6441
Facsimile: 612-284-6421
jenn@legalforgood.com
ATTORNEY FOR FEEDING OUR FUTURE
VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 16,
2026.
By: ___________________________________
Ali Egal, Feeding Our Future Board President
15