Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Claim in a Criminal Forfeiture Case

In this brief, the Government explains why a third-party’s claim making only a bald assertion that it is the owner of the forfeited property, and that it acquired its ownership interest in a particular month and year, does not satisfy the pleading requires in 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(3) — i.e., because it does no satisfy the minimal pleading requirements in Iqbal and Twombly; because it does not state the nature and extent of the third party’s interest (in that it does not say if the claim is made pursuant to Section 853(n)(6)(A) or (B); and because it does not set forth the “time and circumstances” in which the interest was acquired.  Moreover, it argues that granting leave to amend the claim would be futile because the claimant is the alter ego of the defendant, and thus lacks standing to file a third-party claim under Section 853(n)(2).

US Reply to PSC Response to Motion to DIsmiss