Case 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 11 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WES’ DISTRICT OF TEXAS RES TTT SION wigoct 11 PH 327 CLER: ¢ gURT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § WESTER! iF TEXAS. Plaintiff, § RY. IN U.S. CURRENCY, ve { Civil action L 6cvi 13 “RP 514,000.00, MORE OR LESS, ; IN U.S. CURRENCY § and § $7,980.00, MORE OR LESS, § § § Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE NOW COMES Plaintiff United States of America, by and through the United States Attomey for the Western District of Texas, pursuant to Rule G, Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and respectfully states as follows: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action is brought by the United States seeking forfeiture to the United States of the following property: ‘* $14,000.00, More or Les: ‘© $7,980.00, More or Less, US. Currency and U.S. Curreney (hereinafter, “Defendant Properties”), Il, STATUTORY BASIS FOR FORFEITURE 2. This is a civil forfeiture action in rem brought against the Defendant Properties for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 ef seq. and subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A&C) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a\(6), which state:Case 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 11 § 981. Civil Forfeiture (a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States: (A) Any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such property. (© Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of. . .. any offense constituting "specified unlawful activity” (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this title), or @ conspiracy to commit such offense. $881. Forfeitures (a) Subject property The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them: © All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter. MI, JURISDICTION AND VENUE, 3 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1345, the Court has jurisdiction over an action commenced by the United States, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1355(a), the Court has jurisdiction over an action for forfeiture. This Court has in rem jurisdiction over the Defendant Properties under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1355(b) and 1395, 4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1) because the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred in this District and because the Defendant Properties are found in this District. See also 28 U.S. . § 1395(b). 5. The Defendant Properties were seized on April 18, 2016, by the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS). ‘The Defendant Properties have remained in the custody ofCase 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 11 the USPIS, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and shall remain within the jurisdiction of the court pending litigation of this case. IV. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FORFEITURE 6. The USPIS conducts an ongoing analysis of prior packages mailed through parcel delivery services by using established interdiction programs. Using these interdiction programs, the USPIS has determined that a package has a high probal of containing a controlled substance, contraband, or drug proceeds when two or more of the following characteristics are found: (a) the addressee’s name is unknown at the destination address; (b) the package has handwritten address information; (c) the package is mailed from, or addressed to, a known narcotic source city; (4) the package has a fictitious return address; (e) the sender's name is ‘unknown at the return address; (1) the Zip Code from where the package is mailed is different than the Zip Code used in the return address; and (g) the package is wrapped in paper and/or heavily taped, 7. In April 2016, the USPIS identified eight Priority Mail Express parcels that were shipped, since February 2016, from the San Marcos, Texas area to 1760 Jeri Court, Anderson, California 96007. ‘The review noted a variety of sender names and return addresses listed on the shipping labels. The USPIS Inspector knew through training and experience that, absent a business relationship, the number of packages were beyond the normal use for individuals, that the destination area was a known source city for high-grade marijuana, and that the packages ‘were consistent with the shipment of drug proceeds. 8 On April 12, 2016, a review of outbound Priority Mail Express parcels at the U.S. Postal Service’s Processing and Distribution Center in Austin, Texas found two suspect parcels: Page 3Case 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 11 * “Package A” ~ Priority Mail Express parcel #6L334360023US which was addressed to Fasa Seng, 1760 Jeri Court, Anderson, California 96007 from Luther Yamthe, 1111 Avalon Avenue #2832, San Marcos, Texas 78666. * “Package B” — Priority Mail Express parcel #£L251010197US which was addressed to Fasa Seng, 1760 Jeri Court, Anderson, California 96007, from Dominique Davila, 201 Telluride Street, San Marcos, Texas 78666. ‘According to the handwritten shipping labels, both parcels were mailed on April 11, 2016, from the San Marcos, Texas 78666 Post Office within 1.5 hours of each other. 9. As to Package A, the USPIS determined that, although the return address was a valid residential address, the listed sender, Luther Yamthe (Yamthe), was not known to receive mail at the residence. 10, As to Package B, the USPIS determined that the return address was a valid residential address for a large college student apartment complex. But Package B's return ‘address did not identify a specific apartment number, and the USPIS confirmed that Dominique Davila (Davila) was not known to receive mail at any of the units in the apartment complex. 11, The USPIS also confirmed that the destination address of 1760 Jeri Court, Anderson, California 96007 was a valid residential address although the addressee, Fasa Seng, was not associated with the residence or known to receive mail at that residence. The USPIS Inspector knew through training and experience that the use of fictitious data, such as an unknown addressee name at a valid address, is employed by drug traffickers who are seeking to conceal their identity and avoid detection. It is also characteristic of packages containing controlled substances, contraband, or drug proceeds. 12. On April 12, 2016, an open air sniff was conducted by a nationally certified drug dog as to Package A and three “dummy” packages. The dog alerted to Package A but did not alert on the other three packages. The positive alert indicated that Package A was recently Page +Case 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 11 contaminated with or associated with derivatives of the odor of one or more controlled substances that the dog is trained to detect, such as cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. 13. Also on April 12, 2016, an open air sniff was conducted by a nationally certified drug dog as to Package B and three “dummy” packages. The dog alerted to Package B but did not alert on the other three packages. The positive alert indicated that Package B was recently contaminated with or associated with derivatives of the odor of one or more controlled substances that the dog is trained to detect, such as cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. 14, On April 16, 2016, separate federal search warrants were obtained for Package A and Package B. On April 18, 2016, the packages were opened pursuant to the search warrants. 15. Package A contained a single manila mailing envelope which held a large amount of US, currency, The currency consisted of four rubber-banded stacks which were counted and determined to consist of the following: Number | Value 345| $6,900 63 $630 90 $450 The currency in Package A totaled $7,980.00, more or less, in U.S. Currency (ie. one of the Defendant Properties). Package A did not contain any notes or other correspondence. 16. Package B contained a single “Ready Post” envelope which, in tun, contained a brown paper bag from Taco Bell which held a large amount of U.S. currency. The currency consisted of seven rubber-banded stacks which were counted and determined to consist of the following: Page SCase 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 11 Denomination | Number | Value $20 48] $12,960 S10 @ 3670 35 7 $360 31 10 $10] The currency in Package B totaled $14,000.00, more or less, in U.S. Currency (ie. one of the Defendant Properties), Package B did not contain any notes or other correspondence. 17. The USPIS Inspector knew, through training and experience, that the presence of currency in small denominations (such as $20 bills or less) is consistent with proceeds from street sales of narcotics. The USPIS Inspector also knew, through training and experience, that the attempted transmission of a large amount of cash via mail without any accompanying correspondence (such as a transmittal letter, note, receipt, or card) is indicative of drug proceeds and/or property used to facilitate/purchase drugs. The USPIS Inspector further knew, through training and experience, that currency bundled with rubber-bands is a common method used by drug distributors and couriers to store and transport drug proceeds. Based on the USPIS Inspector's training, experience, and observations as noted above, the contents of Package A and Package B (i.e. the Defendant Properties) were seized by USPIS on April 18, 2016, as illegal proceeds from the sale of narcotics and/or property used to facilitate unlawful drug crimes, 18. As the investigation progressed, the USPIS determined that more than thirty Priority Mail parcels had been mailed directly to Yamthe or Davila (ie. the senders of the two parcels containing the Defendant Properties) or to another address associated with them from the ‘Anderson, California area as follows: «Between February and April 2016, Yamthe received thirteen Priority Mail parcels at 1111 Avalon Avenue #2832, San Marcos, TX 78666. All 13 parcels were from the Anderson, California area and each listed a fictitious sender name and/or address; Page 6Case 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 11 ‘© Between February and April 2016, Davila received nine Priority Mail parcels at 301 Telluride Street #3282, San Marcos, TX 78666. All 9 parcels were from the ders a at 8 fictitious sender name and/or address; + Between February and April 2016, Taylor Mikesich received eleven Priority Mail parcels at 1111 Avalon Avenue #1012, San Marcos, TX 78666. All 11 parcels were from the Anderson, California area and each listed a fictitious sender name and/or address. 19. All thirty-three parcels listed a variation of the same fictitious name and address in Anderson, California, which is the same city where the Defendant Properties were being mailed. Also, the parties listed above were found to be linked by social media, USPS records, and other records. The USPIS also determined that “Fasa Seng” was actually Fasadeuang Sengphachanh (Sengphachanh). Through training, experience, and the investigative findings, the USPIS believes that the packages from Anderson, California to San Marcos, Texas were shipments of marijuana while the packages from San Marcos to Anderson, California were shipments of drug proceeds. 20. On June 8, 2016, the USPIS provided Sengphachanh with notice of the seizure of the Defendant Properties and its intention to proceed with administrative forfeiture. On July 13, 2016, Sengphachanh submitted one administrative claim, contesting the administrative forfeiture of the Defendant Properties (which were sent in two separate packages purportedly by two different individuals at two different times). The USPIS continued its investigation and referred the matter to the U.S. Attomey’s Office for further proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a\(3)(A) (providing that “Not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for forfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules. Page 7Case 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 11 21, In reviewing local police reports, the USPIS learned that in July 2016 the police had responded recently to two of the San Marcos residences suspected of receiving packages of ‘marijuana as follows: a. On July 23, 2016, local police responded to a report of a burglary at 1111 Avalon Avenue #2832, San Marcos, Texas 78666, The police interviewed a resident, who reported missing two firearms, an unknown amount of cash, jewelry, and electronics. b. On July 26, 2016, local police responded to a report of burglary of 1111 Avalon Avenue #1012, San Marcos, Texas 78666. The responding officers observed that the front door had been kicked in. A resident was interviewed and stated that nothing was missing and emphasized that s/he did not want to file a police report or wish further investigation of the incident. ‘The USPIS further determined that no other similar burglaries were reported within the large apartment complex during the prior six months. The USPIS Inspector knew, through training and experience, that the storage of drugs and curreney at a drug distributor's residence makes that residence more likely to be the target of a home invasion or burglary as other nefarious persons seek to obtain drugs and/or cash by any means, 22. ‘The USPIS visited the residences suspected of receiving packages of marijuana. ‘The residents agreed to speak voluntarily to the USPIS and provided statements against interest, During the interviews that were conducted in the apartments, the USPIS leamed the following: a. One of the residences had an electronic money counter in plain view on the kitchen counter. (Through training and experience, the USPIS Inspector knew that possession of a money counter is an accoutrement of someone involved in drug trafficking.) b, Admissions that the residents had distributed high-grade marijuana which was obtained in multi-pound shipments from a source in Anderson, California. ¢. Admissions that each pound of marijuana was bought for about $2,400 and was sold locally at a profit. 4. Admissions that the drug proceeds were then mailed to Anderson, California, such as Package A and Package B which contained the Defendant Properties. Page 8Case 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 11 23. Based on (i) the attempted transmission of a large amount of cash via mail without any accompanying correspondence, (ii) the bundling of the Defendant Properties in a manner consistent with drug proceeds, (iii) the mailing of the packages to a known source city for controlled substances, (iv) the positive dog alert on the packages containing the Defendant Properties and (v) the statements against interest obtained by the USPIS that confirm the Defendant Properties are drug proceeds, these facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that the Defendant Properties represent illegal proceeds from the sale of narcotics and/or property used to facilitate unlawful drug crimes. 24. Based on the foregoing facts, the Defendant Properties were seized and are subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C, § 981(a}(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a\(6) as the Defendant Properties were involved in, constitute or are derived from proceeds traceable to the sale of narcotics and/or property used to facilitate unlawful drug crimes in knowing violations of I8US.C. § 1956 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 ef seq Y. PRAYER ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff United States of America prays that due process issue to enforce the forfeiture of the Defendant Properties; that due notice, pursuant to Rule G(4), be given to all interested parties to appear and show cause why forfeiture should not be decreed;' that a warrant for an arrest in rem be ordered; that the Defendant Properties be forfeited to the United States of America; that the Defendant Properties be disposed of in accordance with the Jaw; and for any such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper. ‘Appendix A, Notice of Complaint of Forfeiture, which is being filed along with this complaint, will be sent 0 those known to the United States to have an interest in the Defendant Properties. Page 9Case 1:16-cv-01137-RP Document1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 11 By: Respectfully submitted, RICHARD L. DURBIN, JR. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY L DANIEL M. CASTILLO Assistant United States Atlomey Texas State Bar No. 00793481 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1000 Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: (512) 916-5858 Fax: (512) 916-5854 Email: Daniel.Castillo@usdoj.gov ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Page 10