Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 1:12-CR-0291
12-04-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2013, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 15) to determine sufficiency of evidence to support remissions claim, filed by non-parties Carole Goldberg and Debra Patterson, and it appearing that defendant entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the government in which it agreed to pay the government $100,000,000 in lieu of a civil or criminal forfeiture action, (see Doc. 3), and it further appearing that the agreement provides that "the forfeited funds will be restored to the victims of the fraud . . . pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(e)(6), under the Petition for Remission and/or Mitigation procedures of the United States Department of Justice or any other manner within the United States Attorney General's discretion," (Id. ¶ 7) (emphasis added), and it further appearing that movants are requesting an order declaring that they provided sufficient documentation to establish a fraud loss of $86,400 in support of their claim for remission, but the court concluding that the government possesses the sole discretion to restore forfeited funds to the victims of fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 981(e)(6) (stating that the Attorney General may "transfer [forfeited] property . . . as restoration to any victim of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture"); 28 C.F.R. §§ 9.1-9.9; United States v. Approximately $133,803.53 in U.S. Currency Seized from Washington Mut. Bank, N.A., Account # 4420842802, held in the Name of Advantage Fin., 683 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("Congress granted the Attorney General sole discretion to address claims by victims through a remissions process that occurs after the successful prosecution of the forfeiture case."); United States v. Fenner, Crim. A. No. 05-167, 2011 WL 2015054 at *1 (M.D. Pa. 2011) ("Determining whether to retain forfeited property or apply the property toward victim restitution is within the sole discretion of the Attorney General."), and that the government's decision is not subject to judicial review, see, e.g., United States v. One 1973 Buick Riviera Auto., 560 F.2d 897, 900 (8th Cir. 1977) (finding that "[t]he overwhelming weight of authority" supports its determination that the Department of Justice's denial of a petition for remission is not subject to judicial review), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 15) is DENIED.
Throughout the motion, movants refer to the underlying action as a "class action" and that their claim as "class members" is subject to "the parties' settlement agreement." (Doc. 15 at 1; Doc. 16 at 1, 2, 7, 8). However, the underlying action is clearly a criminal action where the United States entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with defendant Moneygram International, Inc.
Regardless, the government has yet to make a decision concerning movants' claim: the remission administrator has simply requested further information. (Doc. 16-1, Ex. C).
--------
_______
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania