UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 05-356
)
$455,273.72 IN FUNDS FROM )
BANK OF AMERICA CHECKING )
ACCOUNT #0019-2067-7376 )
HELD IN THE NAME OF THE )
VOICE OF SOCIAL CONCERN )
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action involves property that plaintiff, the federal
government, alleges is forfeitable. The facts that form the
basis of this civil in rem action are identical to those that
formed the basis for the criminal prosecution and subsequent
conviction of claimant Akube Wuromoni Ndoromo (a/k/a Akiuber
Ndoromo James) for health care fraud and money laundering. See
Criminal Case No. 06-19. The government contends that the
defendant property is subject to forfeiture because, among other
things, the jury in claimant’s criminal action determined that
the defendant funds and the defendant vehicles were traceable to
the health care fraud and money laundering offenses. Pending
before the Court is the government’s motion for summary
judgment. Upon consideration of the motion, the response and
reply thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the
Court concludes that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment
on Counts I and IV of the Verified Complaint. 1 Accordingly, and
for the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s
motion.
I. Background
On or about January 10, 2001, Voice of Social Concern
Association, Inc. (“VSCA”) became a D.C. Medicaid transportation
provider, eligible to receive reimbursements from Medicaid for
the provision of non-emergency transportation of Medicaid
recipients. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 5. 2 Claimant Ndoromo was the
1
Plaintiff only requested summary judgment as to Counts I
and IV of the complaint (health care fraud and money laundering,
respectively). The other counts in the complaint relate to mail
fraud (Count II) and wire fraud (Count III). The Court will
note, however, that the government did not pursue mail fraud
charges against claimant in Criminal Case No. 06-19. See Pl.’s
SMF ¶¶ 21-22. With respect to wire fraud, the Court will
further note that the government moved to dismiss the wire fraud
counts from the Superseding Indictment. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 23 n.4. In
view of the government’s inaction on these charges in claimant’s
criminal case, as well as the fact that the government asked the
Court to enter “judgment in its favor” in this action, see Pl.’s
Mot. at 2, the Court hereby, sua sponte, dismisses Counts II and
III of the complaint for lack of prosecution subject to a motion
for reconsideration for good cause shown by no later than
October 10, 2011.
2
This background section is taken from plaintiff’s
“Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No General
Dispute,” Docket No. 52, to which claimant Ndoromo failed to
specifically respond. The Court will note that it advised
claimant Ndoromo that, with respect to plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment, “‘any factual assertions in the movant’s
affidavits will be accepted as being true unless [he]
submit[ted] his own affidavits or other documentary evidence
contradicting the assertion.’” Docket No. 59 (quoting Neal v.
2
President/Chief Executive Officer of VSCA. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 6.
VSCA’s business address, 3636 16th Street NW, Apartment B1235,
Washington, DC 20010, also served as Mr. Ndoromo’s residence.
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 7.
Mr. Ndoromo and VSCA engaged in a scheme to defraud D.C.
Medicaid by preparing and submitting false claims for
transportation services. Specifically, Mr. Ndoromo and VSCA
would submit claims stating that it had provided transportation
services to Medicaid beneficiaries, when, in fact, no such
services had been rendered. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 8 (citing Criminal Case
No. 06-19, Docket No. 37 (“Verdict”)). Mr. Ndoromo completely
controlled VSCA’s bank accounts and signed D.C. Medicaid’s
Electronic Data Interchange (“EDI”) [Direct Deposit] Enrollment
Application as VSCA’s Chief Financial Officer/Authorized
Representative. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 9. Mr. Ndoromo signed claims
purporting to document transportation services provided to
beneficiaries and then submitted them to Affiliated Computer
Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). As claimant Ndoromo
failed to respond to plaintiff’s statement of material facts,
the Court may deem plaintiff’s facts as conceded. See Local
Rule 7(h)(1) (“In determining a motion for summary judgment, the
court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in
its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact
is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in
opposition to the motion.”). The Court will note, however, that
the government’s statement of material facts is primarily
derived from (i) claimant’s answer in this case and (ii) the
jury verdicts in claimant’s related criminal action.
3
Services (“ACS”), the company that handled billing for the
District of Columbia’s Medicaid Program. Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 10, 4.
In response to claims submitted by Mr. Ndoromo on behalf of
VSCA, D.C. Medicaid mailed approximately ninety-nine checks to
Mr. Ndoromo at his residence. These Medicaid checks were
deposited into VSCA’s Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) checking
account number 0019 2067 7376. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 11. D.C. Medicaid
also sent reimbursements directly by wire to VSCA’s BOA checking
account number 0019 2067 7376, which Mr. Ndoromo controlled.
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 12. D.C. Medicaid paid VSCA at least $1,550,767.46
for transportation services. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 13.
On December 20, 2004, a United States Magistrate Judge in
the District of Columbia issued four seizure warrants. Pl.’s
SMF ¶ 14. One warrant authorized seizure of a “2004 Land Rover,
Discovery II, Sport Utility Vehicle, DC Tag CB2367, VIN
SALTR19434A829815 registered in the name of [Ndoromo].” Pl.’s
SMF ¶ 14 (citing Seizure Warrant, Mag. No. 04-M-796). 3 A second
warrant authorized seizure of a “2001 Chevrolet 3500 Express
Van, DC Tag B40149, Vehicle Identification Number
1GAHG39R211120100.” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 14 (citing Seizure Warrant,
3
On July 19, 2004, Mr. Ndoromo wrote a $35,000 check from
VSCA’s BOA checking account number 0019 2067 7376 for the entire
purchase price of the defendant Land Rover. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 20.
4
Mag. No. 04-M-797). 4 A third warrant authorized seizure of
“[a]ny and all funds in the following accounts at [BOA], held in
the name of [VSCA]: (1) #0019 2067 7376 (checking account);
(2) #910 000 0658 0436 (CD account); (3) #910 000 0665 2911 (CD
account); and (4) #910 000 1557 3214 (CD account); and [a]ny and
all funds in [BOA], checking account #0019 2315 5727, held in
the name of [Ndoromo].” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 14 (citing Seizure Warrant,
Mag. No. 04-M-798 (D.D.C. December 20, 2004)). 5 A fourth warrant
authorized seizure of “[a]ny and all funds in the following
4
Between January 22, 2002 and March 18, 2003, Mr. Ndoromo
wrote sixteen checks totaling $25,322.87, from the VSCA’s BOA
checking account number 0019 2067 7376 to GMAC to make payments
on the defendant Chevrolet Express. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 20.
5
Mr. Ndoromo opened, in the name of VSCA, three CD accounts
at BOA: (1) account number 910 000 0658 0436; (2) account number
910 000 0665 2911; and (3) account number 910 000 1557 3214.
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 17. The funds deposited into those CD accounts were
either directly transferred from VSCA’s BOA checking account
number 0019 2067 7376, or originated from that account. Pl.’s
SMF ¶ 17. Specifically, on January 16, 2002, $20,000 was
transferred into account number 910 000 0658 0436. Pl.’s SMF
¶ 17. On April 23, 2003, $50,000 was transferred into account
number 910 000 0665 2911. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 17. And on September 15,
2003, $100,000 was transferred into account number 910 000 1557
3214. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 17.
In addition, from January 31, 2003, through August 11,
2004, Mr. Ndoromo transferred funds from VSCA’s BOA checking
account number 0019 2067 7376 to his personal BOA checking
account number 0019 2315 5727 by writing checks to himself.
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 18. During that time period, Mr. Ndoromo also
transferred approximately $96,100 into account number 0019 2315
5727. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 18. VSCA’s BOA checking account #0019 2067
7376 funded approximately 98.6% of the deposits into Ndoromo’s
BOA personal account number 0019 2315 5727. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 18.
5
accounts at Citibank, FSB (“Citibank”), held in the name of
[Ndoromo] (1) #16196821 (CD account); (2) #6737246044; and
(3) #6737691961.” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 14 (citing Seizure Warrant, Mag.
No. 04-M-799 (D.D.C. December 20, 2004)). 6
The seizure warrants for the funds in the bank accounts
were executed on December 21, 2004. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 15. The
seizure warrants for the vehicles along with two search warrants
were executed on December 22, 2004. Execution of the four
seizure warrants resulted in the seizure of the following ten
items:
• $455,273.72 in funds from BOA checking account number 0019
2067 7376, held in the name of VSCA;
• $20,749.93 in funds from BOA Certificate of Deposit (“CD”)
account number 910 000 0658 0436, held in the name of
VSCA;
• $51,035.88 in funds from BOA CD account number 910 000
0665 2911, held in the name of VSCA;
• $101,563.35 in funds from BOA CD account number 910 000
1557 3214, held in the name of VSCA;
6
Mr. Ndoromo had opened three personal accounts at Citibank
by transferring funds from VSCA’s BOA checking account number
0019 2067 7376: (1) account number 16196821; (2) account number
67372469044; and (3) account number 6737691961. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 19.
Specifically, on July 3, 2003, $50,000 was transferred into
Account Number 16196821, and on April 2, 2004, $250,000 was
transferred into that account. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 19. On May 24,
2003, $100,000 was transferred into Account Number 67372469044.
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 19. And on July 14, 2003, $5,000 was transferred
into Account Number 6737691961. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 19. Ndoromo was
the only signatory on these three Citibank accounts. Pl.’s SMF
¶ 19.
6
• $4,309.21 in funds from BOA checking account number 0019
2315 5727, held in the name of Mr. Ndoromo;
• $404,159.73 in funds form Citibank money market account
number 16196821, held in the name of Mr. Ndoromo;
• $41,034.09 in funds from Citibank checking account number
67372469044, held in the name of Mr. Ndoromo;
• $9,784.38 in funds from Citibank checking account number
6737246044, held in the name of Mr. Ndoromo;
• one dark blue/green 2004 Land Rover Discovery II, sport
utility vehicle, bearing VIN: SALTR19434A829815,
registered to Mr. Ndoromo; and
• one blue 2001 Chevrolet 3500 Express van, bearing VIN:
1GAHG39R211120100, registered to Mr. Ndoromo.
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 15. These funds and vehicles are the defendants in
this in rem forfeiture action (hereinafter, the “defendant
funds” and the “defendant vehicles”). Pl.’s SMF ¶ 15.
On March 2, 2005, Mr. Ndoromo and VSCA filed a claim of
ownership for the defendant funds and the defendant vehicles.
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 16; see Docket No. 2. On March 3, 2005, claimants
filed an Answer. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 16; see Docket No. 3. Thereafter,
on March 14, 2005, claimants filed an amended verified claim of
ownership for the defendant funds and defendant vehicles. Pl.’s
SMF ¶ 16; see Docket No. 4. 7
7
No other party filed a claim or pleading challenging the
forfeiture of the defendant currency and the time for filing
such a claim has expired. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 29 (citing 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(a)(4)(A)).
7
On January 25, 2006, Mr. Ndoromo and VSCA were indicted by
a federal grand jury in Criminal Case No. 06-19 on twenty-seven
charges, including health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1347; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; false
statements regarding health care matters, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1035(a)(2); and money laundering, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1957. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 21; see also Criminal Case No. 06-
19, Docket No. 1 (“Indictment”). The Indictment also alleged
forfeiture of the defendant funds and the defendant vehicles.
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 21. Soon thereafter, on February 1, 2006, a
Superseding Indictment charged Mr. Ndoromo and VSCA with twenty-
six counts relating to VSCA’s fraudulent billing scheme to
Medicaid. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 21; see also Criminal Case No. 06-19,
Docket No. 3 (“Superseding Indictment”). On July 16, 2006, the
Court issued an order staying this matter while Criminal Case
No. 06-19 was pending.
On March 30, 2007, a jury in the criminal case found Mr.
Ndoromo guilty of Count One (health care fraud), Counts Six
through Sixteen (false statements relating to health care
matters), and Counts Nineteen through Twenty-Six (money
laundering). Pl.’s SMF ¶ 23; see also Criminal Case No. 06-19,
8
Docket No. 37 (“Verdict”). 8 The jury also returned special
verdicts regarding the forfeiture allegations. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 24;
see also Criminal Case No. 06-19, Docket No. 41 (the “Special
Verdict”). Specifically, the jury unanimously found that
$1,856,812.71 represented the sum of money constituting, or
derived from, proceeds traceable to the health care fraud.
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 24 (citing Special Verdict). The jury further found
the same sum of money to have been involved in or traceable to
property involved in the money laundering offense. Pl.’s SMF ¶
24 (citing Special Verdict). The jury also found that the 2004
Land Rover Discovery II and the 2001 Chevrolet 3500 Express van
were derived from proceeds traceable to the health care fraud,
and were involved in or traceable to property involved in the
money laundering. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 24 (citing Special Verdict).
On October 22, 2008, Mr. Ndoromo was sentenced in Criminal
Case No. 06-19 to 57 months imprisonment and 36 months of
supervised release. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 28. The Court orally announced
that it was ordering, as part of Mr. Ndoromo’s sentence,
forfeiture of the criminal proceeds in the form of a money
judgment, and forfeiture of the defendant vehicles. Pl.’s SMF
¶ 28; see also Criminal Case No. 06-19, Docket Nos. 122-123
(orders of criminal forfeiture). In addition, at the request of
8
Counts Two through Five (wire fraud) and Seventeen and
Eighteen (false statements relating to health care matters) were
dismissed at the government’s request. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 23 n.4.
9
the government, the Court subsequently amended the Judgment and
Commitment Order in Criminal Case No. 06-19 to incorporate, by
reference, the criminal forfeiture orders that were entered in
that case. See Criminal Case No. 06-19, Docket No. 152.
Following Mr. Ndoromo’s sentencing, the government filed a
motion to lift stay and for summary judgment. The Court granted
the government’s motion to lift stay on September 1, 2009.
Claimant Ndoromo thereafter filed an opposition to the
government’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the
government’s motion for summary judgment is now ripe for
determination by the Court.
II. Legal Framework
A. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary
judgment should be granted if the moving party has shown that
there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986);
Waterhouse v. District of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989, 991 (D.C. Cir.
2002). “A fact is material if it ‘might affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing law,’ and a dispute about a
material fact is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.’” Steele v. Schafer, 535 F.3d 689, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
10
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986)). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial
burden of demonstrating an absence of genuine issues of material
fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. In determining whether a
genuine issue of material facts exists, the Court must view all
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
597 (1986); Keyes v. District of Columbia, 372 F.3d 434, 436
(D.C. Cir. 2004).
B. CAFRA
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”) authorizes
the government to seize any property (except real property
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 985) that is “subject to forfeiture.”
See 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(1). Property is subject to forfeiture if
it “constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to . . .
any offense constituting a ‘specified unlawful activity,’” id.§ 981(a)(1)(C), such as health care fraud, see id. § 1956(c)(7).
In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) provides for the
forfeiture of property, real or personal, involved in money
laundering.
CAFRA requires the government to prove that property is
subject to forfeiture by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Id.§ 983(c)(1). The government is permitted, however, to “use
evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint for forfeiture
11
to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that property
is subject to forfeiture.” Id. § 983(c)(2).
III. Analysis
The government argues that it is entitled to summary
judgment because Mr. Ndoromo – the owner of the defendant res -
was found guilty of health care fraud and money-laundering
involving the defendant funds and the defendant vehicles in
Criminal Case No. 06-19. 9 Specifically, the government contends
that because Mr. Ndoromo’s conviction in Criminal Case No. 06-19
was based upon the same facts as those alleged in Counts I and
IV of the Verified Complaint in this action, 10 it has shown that
the defendant res is subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of
the evidence as required by CAFRA. See Pl.’s Mot. at 10
(“Because Ndoromo was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of
health care fraud and money-laundering, there is ample evidence
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant funds and vehicles are civilly forfeitable.”).
9
Plaintiff asserts, and this Court agrees, that as Mr.
Ndoromo’s alter ego, VSCA lacks Article III standing to contest
the forfeiture of the defendant funds and defendant vehicles.
Pl.’s Mot. at 8-10; see also Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 6-20.
10
Count I of the Verified Complaint asserts, among other
things, that “[t]he defendant funds and automobiles are subject
to forfeiture because they constitute or are derived from,
proceeds traceable to a violation of health care fraud.” Compl.
¶ 30. Count IV of the Verified Complaint asserts, among other
things, that “[t]he defendant funds and automobiles are subject
to forfeiture because are property involved in money
laundering.” Compl. ¶ 39.
12
Primarily for the reasons stated in plaintiff’s motion and reply
brief, this Court agrees and finds that the defendant funds and
the defendant vehicles are subject to forfeiture.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court is particularly
persuaded by the Special Verdict in Criminal Case No. 06-19,
which states, in relevant part:
• “We, the jury, unanimously find, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that $1,856,812.71 represents the sum of money
constituting, or derived from, proceeds traceable to the
health care fraud offense charged in Count One.”
• “We, the jury, unanimously find, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the following property represents the
property constituting, or derived from, proceeds traceable
to the health care fraud offense charged in Count One:
(a) one dark blue/green 2004 Land Rover Discovery II, sport
utility vehicle, bearing vehicle identification number
SALTR19434A829815 and tag CB2367, registered in the name of
Akube Ndoromo[; and] (b) one blue 2001 Chevrolet 3500
Express van, bearing vehicle identification number
1GAHG39R211120100 and tag B40149, registered in the name of
Akube Ndoromo.”
• “We, the jury, unanimously find, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that $1,856,812.71 represents the sum of money
that was involved in the money laundering offense, or
traceable to property involved in the money laundering
offense charged in Counts Nineteen through Twenty-Six.”
• “We, the jury, unanimously find, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the following property was involved in the
money laundering offense, or traceable to property involved
in the money laundering offense charged in Counts Nineteen
through Twenty-Six: (a) one dark blue/green 2004 Land Rover
Discovery II, sport utility vehicle, bearing vehicle
identification number SALTR19434A829815 and tag CB2367,
registered in the name of Akube Ndoromo[; and] (b) one blue
2001 Chevrolet 3500 Express van, bearing vehicle
identification number 1GAHG39R211120100 and tag B40149,
registered in the name of Akube Ndoromo.”
13
Criminal Case No. 06-19, Docket No. 41. 11 Because “[t]he
doctrine of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel bars [a
claimant]’s attempt to relitigate in [a] civil proceeding an
issue of fact fully litigated in a prior criminal proceeding and
necessary and essential to the judgment of conviction entered in
the criminal matter,” United States v. One 1987 Mercedes Benz
300E, 820 F. Supp. 248, 253 (E.D. Va. 1993); see also Pl.’s Mot.
at 7-8 (citing additional cases), the Court finds that there are
no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant
funds and the defendant vehicles are forfeitable.
Nor is the Court persuaded by claimant Ndoromo’s assertions
to the contrary. Mr. Ndoromo’s principal argument in opposition
to the government’s motion is that awarding the government the
relief it seeks would violate the constitutional proscription
against double jeopardy because this civil forfeiture action is
based upon the same facts that formed the basis for his criminal
conviction. See Claimant’s Opp’n at 2 (arguing that “seizure
under Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 41 constitute[s] criminal punishment
11
The government further asserts that: (i) “Ndoromo
admitted that Medicaid funds (which the jury determined resulted
from a health care fraud scheme) were initially deposited into
VSCA’s BOA checking account #0019 2067 7376,” Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 11-
12; (ii) “Ndoromo further admitted that he then transferred
funds from that account into the various accounts that were
seized,” Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 17-20; and (iii) “[Ndoromo] also admitted
that he paid for the defendant vehicles with Medicaid funds,”
Pl.’s SMF ¶ 20.
14
for double jeopardy purpose [sic] in civil procedures [sic].”).
That argument, however, is without merit, as the Supreme Court
has held that “in rem civil forfeitures are neither ‘punishment’
nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.”
United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 292 (1996). Indeed, that
Court went on to explain that “Congress [has] long . . .
authorized the Government to bring parallel criminal procedures
and civil forfeiture proceedings, and this Court has
consistently found civil forfeitures not to constitute
punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Id. at 287-88.
To the extent, therefore, that Mr. Ndoromo suggests anything to
the contrary, his position must be rejected.
Claimant Ndoromo next argues that the seizure warrants were
illegal because of the interplay between civil forfeiture law
and criminal law. See Claimant’s Opp’n at 2 (attacking the
government’s use of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure in a civil action); see also Claimant’s Affidavit,
Docket No. 62 ¶ 3 (“Government used Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure Rule 41, in a civil procedure and in contempt of this
Court.”). The Court finds this argument similarly misplaced.
As the government explains, “[t]he civil forfeiture statute,
Section 981, specifically states that ‘seizures pursuant to this
section shall be made pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same
manner as provided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules
15
of Criminal Procedure . . . .’” Pl.’s Reply at 7 (citing 18
U.S.C. § 981(b)(2)). The Court is not persuaded, therefore,
that the “double jeopardy clause bars government [sic] from
civil procedure on in rem forfeiture using criminal procedure in
civil action.” Claimant’s Opp’n at 3. Nor is the Court
persuaded that the government violated the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act when it seized the defendant bank accounts
pursuant to the seizure warrants issued by this court. See
Claimant’s Opp’n at 2-3.
The Court, therefore - having rejected Mr. Ndoromo’s
arguments that forfeiture of the defendant property would
violate the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy
or is otherwise illegal - concludes that summary judgment is
warranted in favor of the government. Indeed, the Court finds
that there is ample evidence from the criminal trial of Mr.
Ndoromo, over which this Court presided, that (i) Mr. Ndomoro
perpetrated a health care fraud scheme in which he obtained over
$1,856,812.71 in proceeds; and (ii) laundered those proceeds by
transferring them into numerous bank accounts and purchasing the
two defendant vehicles. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
government has demonstrated that the defendant property is
subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence.
16
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Court finds that the defendant funds and the
defendant vehicles are subject to forfeiture. Accordingly, for
the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment. An appropriate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Court Judge
September 26, 2011
17