United States v. $5
United States v. $5,379,876.94 in United States Currency Formerly on Deposit in Sunflower Bank, N.A. Account 1101996560, Held in the name of OFAC Blocked Account MALOFEYEV
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10148
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States v. $5,379,876.94, Judge Furman denied Evgeny Ryzhov’s motion to reopen because he alleged no qualifying property interest.
Evgeny Ryzhov’s attempt to assert an interest in the money formerly held in the blocked account was rejected; the United States’ forfeiture proceeding was not otherwise altered by this order.
What happened
United States v. $5,379,876.94 concerns a motion by Evgeny Ryzhov to reopen a case involving money formerly held in a blocked bank account. The court had separated Ryzhov’s claim from another lawsuit and treated it as a motion to reopen this case.
Ryzhov represented himself. He sought to recover an interest in the money, but the court explained that a third party generally must show either an earlier superior interest or that he bought the property for value without reason to know it could be forfeited. The court said Ryzhov could not plausibly show either requirement and, at most, was a potential judgment creditor.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Ryzhov’s motion to reopen and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the filing associated with the motion.
The detailed version
- United States v. $5 · No. 1:22-cv-10148
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 26, 2023
Background
On February 7, 2023, Evgeny Ryzhov, proceeding without counsel, brought a civil action against the money formerly held in the Sunflower Bank account, Konstantin Malofeyev, and Tsargrad TV. The court later severed Ryzhov’s claim against the money and directed that the claim be filed in this case. The court treated the filing as a motion to reopen the case.
Court’s analysis
The court assumed, without deciding that the issue was proper, that Ryzhov’s motion could be brought under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs certain requests for relief from a court order or judgment. The court nevertheless concluded that the motion failed on the merits, substantially for the reasons given in the Government’s opposition.
The court relied on 21 U.S.C. § 853, which provides a process for third parties claiming an interest in forfeited property. Under that process, a third party must show either that the interest is superior to the criminal defendant’s because it arose before the acts leading to forfeiture, or that the third party was a bona fide purchaser for value who reasonably did not know the property was subject to forfeiture. The court stated that Ryzhov could not plausibly allege either requirement. At most, the court said, he would be a potential judgment creditor, and that status does not create a legally recognizable interest in forfeited property.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered: “Ryzhov’s motion to re-open is DENIED.” The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 11. The opinion does not state that the underlying forfeiture case itself was dismissed or otherwise finally resolved by this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.