- 17 -
the Marshals Service pursuant to an order that he was bound to
obey.
C. Respondent’s Failure To Defend Against the Forfeiture
Order
Petitioner concedes that respondent failed to defend against
the forfeiture order pursuant to a hearing authorized by 21
U.S.C. sec. 853(n)(2). Nevertheless, petitioner argues that,
when respondent received the $2 million remittance, respondent
was reasonably without cause to believe that the remittance was
subject to forfeiture. Therefore, petitioner continues, since
the remittance was received in payment of petitioner’s tax debt,
respondent could have successfully defended against the
forfeiture order as a bona fide purchaser for value. See 21
U.S.C. sec. 853(c), (n)(6)(B).5 Because respondent remained
silent when he could have spoken up, petitioner argues that
respondent should be barred from collecting the 1996 tax
liability (in petitioner’s words, “a second time”). Respondent
answers that he could not have defended against the forfeiture
order since, when he received notice of it, he was without
standing to make a claim as a third party with a legal interest
5 We note that this argument implicitly acknowledges the
relation-back doctrine, since it assumes a transfer of property
to a third party after ownership of the property vests in the
United States. See 21 U.S.C. sec. 853(c).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011