USCOURTS Caed 1 - 17 CV 00967 5

Case 1:17-cv-00967-LJO-SKO Document 55 Filed 08/08/18 Page 1 of 27
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00967-LJO-SKO
9
Plaintiff,
10 FINDINGS AND
v.
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
11
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION
12 2013 LAMBORGHINI AVENTADOR FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND
LP700-4, VIN: ZHWEC1476CLA01032, FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
13 BANGKOK PLATE NUMBER: 4 KOR BE GRANTED
KAI TOR TUNG, et al.
14 (Doc. 53)
Defendants.
15
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS
16
17
_________________________________/
18
19
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 In this in rem civil forfeiture action, Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”
22 or “Plaintiff”) filed an Ex Parte Motion for Default Judgment and Final Judgment of Forfeiture
23 (the “Motion”) seeking entry of a default judgment against ten claimants, and a final judgment of
24 forfeiture against all known and unknown potential claimants in the interests of several luxury
25 vehicles, bank accounts, real properties, and millions of dollars in various cryptocurrencies. The
26 ten known claimants in this matter are Martin Cazes, Danielle Heroux, KGYJ Management
27 Limited, Ace Guide Holding, Brilliant Landmark Concept Limited, Nonsuch Management
28
1
1 Limited, Sunisa Thapsuwan (Cazes), The Estate of Alexandre Cazes, Hatrox Limited, and Yaman
2 Properties Co. Limited (collectively “Known Claimants”). (Doc. 53 at 1–2.) Plaintiff seeks a
3 final judgment of forfeiture of the following assets and properties:
4 1. 2013 Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4, VIN: ZHWEC1476CLA01032, Bangkok
5 Registered Plate Number: 4 Kor Kai Tor Tung – 3620 Bangkok,
6 2. Porsche Panamera S, VIN: WP0ZZZ97ZGL040783, Bangkok Registered Plate
7 Number: 5 Kor Kai Tor Tung – 1923 Bangkok,
8 3. Mini Cooper, Bangkok Registered Plate Number: 5 Kor Kai Phophan – 2319 Bangkok,
9 4. BMW Motorcycle, License Plate Number: 5 Kokai Nonen – 2182 Bangkok,
10 5. All monies, funds, and credits on deposit at Bangkok Bank, held in the name of
11 Alexandre Cazes, including but not limited to accounts 228-2-15349-9, 228-2-15092-
12 5 and 033-0-79683-0,
13 6. All monies, funds, and credits on deposit at Bangkok Bank, held in the name of Sunisa
14 Thapsuwan, including but not limited to account 935-7-00049-7,
15 7. All monies, funds, and credits on deposit at Bank of Ayudhya (Krungsri), held in the
16 name of Alexandre Cazes, including but not limited to account 7241012818,
17 8. All monies, funds, and credits on deposit at Kasikorn Bank, held in the name of
18 Alexandre Cazes, including but not limited to accounts 007-3-86968-4,

19 9. All monies, funds, and credits on deposit at Kasikorn Bank, held in the name of Sunisa
20 Thapsuwan, including but not limited to account 073-2-53870-4,
21 10. All monies, funds, and credits on deposit at Siam Commercial Bank, held in the name
22 of Alexandre Cazes, including but not limited to accounts 156-1-12047-0 and 156-2-
23 73157-5,
24 11. All monies, funds, and credits on deposit at Siam Commercial Bank, held in the name
25 of Sunisa Thapsuwan, including but not limited to account 192-2-06800-9,
26 12. All monies, funds, and credits on deposit at Bank Alpinum AG in Liechtenstein, held
27 in the name of Alexandre Cazes,
28
2
1 13. Real property located at 514, Soi 28 off Phutta Monthon Sai 3 Road Khwaeng Sala
2 Thammasop, Khet Thawee Watthana, Bangkok, Thailand,
3 14. Real property located at 522, Soi 28 off Phutta Monthon Sai 3 Road Khwaeng Sala
4 Thammasop, Khet Thawee Watthana, Bangkok, Thailand,
5 15. Real property located at Villa Torcello, 28/18 Moo 6, Kamala, Kathu, Phuket 83150,
6 Thailand,
7 16. Real property located at 1399/8 Granada Pin Klao-Phet Kasem Housing Estate,
8 Kanchana Phisk Road, Khwaeng Bang Khae Nua, Khet Bang Khae, Bangkok,
9 Thailand,
10 17. Real property located at Villa 1 at the Sea Pearl Residences, Paralimni Famagusta,
11 Cyprus,
12 18. Real property located at #302 Nonsuch Bay Condominiums (C-20080017, LOT #9),
13 St. Phillips South, Antigua and Barbuda,
14 19. Approximately 1,605.0503851 Bitcoins seized from Alexandre Cazes and moved to
15 secure government-controlled Bitcoin addresses:
16 18yWFVddqNrGE966zwXTpyJgYJgr82SvMs (837.81699505 BTC) and
17 1NXoCQLQqgaQU2cpBGtXTZ8NVm1cGnYD6p (721.76756789 BTC),
18 20. Approximately 8,309.271639 Ethereum seized from Alexandre Cazes and moved to
19 secure government-controlled Ether address:
20 0x41CC3B9213DE6FF4a8Ea85306326B00D18145E65,
21 21. Approximately 3,691.98 Zcash seized from Alexandre Cazes and moved to secure
22 government-controlled address: t1L5QRksQxTXCB1niqp3JEu4fWTZD8W2a94
23 (formerly described as t1UAr3j9Hyt1oCMygsSLr7S3pLMuKBoNgLg),
24 22. Any and all Monero seized from Alexandre Cazes’ personal computer and wallet
25 addresses,
26
27
28
3
1 23. Approximately 293.79476862 Bitcoin moved from server 3203 into secure
2 government-controlled Bitcoin address:
3 1BBTk41STWuffTfvRrsovX7X8puhDpFofk,
4 24. Approximately 43.05943697 Bitcoin moved from server 3164 into secure
5 government- controlled Bitcoin address:
6 1BBTk41STWuffTfvRrsovX7X8puhDpFofk,
7 25. Approximately 360.384477 Ethereum moved from server 8131 into secure
8 government-controlled Ether address:
9 0x356114879f72f4bFFB343B0003DEED7944B4D31d,
10 26. Approximately 11,993.15882 Monero moved from server 10073 into secure
11 government-controlled Monero address:
12 47gSEo9DJCZfsYrPijJ1QpLksePfjNoBA6mUtQXAW6xBVz6GwEkgYaQf
13 2PDBhm5fXUfozLWYpCxK2FmyZ29bWmZBKhXqKZo,
14 27. Any and all cryptocurrency contained in wallet files residing on AlphaBay servers,
15 including the servers assigned the internet protocol addresses: XX.XXX.XX.146
16 (“Server 11205”), XX.XXX.XXX.163 (“Server 6223”), XXX.XXX.XXX.225
17 (“Server 3203a”), XXX.XXX.XXX.61 (“Server 3203b”), XXX.XXX.XXX.77
18 (“Server 3164”), XX.XXX.XXX.130 (“Server 8131”), XX.XXX.XX.168 (“Server

19 10073 ”), and
20 28. Any and all cryptocurrency seized from the personal computer, wallet addresses, and
21 media of Alexandre Cazes.
22 (collectively, the “Defendant Assets”) (Doc. 53, Ex. A). No opposition to the Motion has been
23 filed, and the time to file an opposition has expired. For the reasons set forth below, the
24 undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Government’s Motion be GRANTED.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
4
1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
2 A. AlphaBay Background
3 On July 26, 2017, the Government filed a verified first amended complaint alleging that
4 between December 2014 and July 2017, the AlphaBay hidden website served as a marketplace
5 for illegal goods—selling malware, controlled substances, chemicals, guns, stolen financial
6 information and counterfeit documents to its users located all over the world including in the
7 Eastern District of California. (Doc. 3 (“Am. Compl.” ¶¶ 3, 4.) An individual named Alexandre
8 Cazes, a/k/a “Alpha02,” a/k/a “Admin,” founded AlphaBay in 2014 and was its leader through
9 July 4, 2017. (Id. ¶ 6.) Cazes oversaw AlphaBay’s operations since its inception and controlled
10 the profits generated from the operation of the business, collecting tens of millions of dollars in
11 commissions from the illegal transactions facilitated by AlphaBay. (Id.) Cazes was aware of the
12 illegal nature of his enterprise—in 2014, he posted in the “About Me” section of AlphaBay that
13 the site was “launched in September 2014 and its goal is to become the largest eBay-style
14 underworld marketplace.” (Id.)
15 AlphaBay was designed to facilitate the illicit commerce hosted on the site by providing
16 anonymity to its users, in two primary ways. (Id. ¶ 5.) First, the AlphaBay hidden website
17 operated on the dark web accessible only through “The Onion Router” network, a special network
18 of computers on the internet designed to conceal the true IP addresses of the computers on the
19 network. (Id.) Second, AlphaBay required its users to transact in cryptocurrencies, also referred
20 to as digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, Monero, and Ethereum. (Id.)
21 AlphaBay was modeled after conventional e-commerce websites. (Id. ¶ 9.) In exchange
22 for a vendor fee, users could establish vendor profiles and offer goods for sale online. (Id.) As
23 of June 2017, there were approximately 369,000 listings for the sale of various categories of illicit
24 goods on the AlphaBay website. (Id. ¶ 10.) Not only were the goods and services offered on
25
26
1
The facts set forth in this factual background section are taken from Plaintiff’s verified amended complaint filed
27 July 26, 2017. (Doc. 3.)
28
5
1 AlphaBay overwhelmingly illegal on their face, but the illicit nature of the commerce conducted
2 on the website was openly recognized in the AlphaBay online community and on the site itself.
3 (Id. ¶ 11.) For example, information available on AlphaBay provided guidance to users
4 concerning how to conduct transactions on the site without being caught by law enforcement.
5 (Id.)
6 During its operation, AlphaBay charged a commission for every transaction conducted by
7 its users. (Id. ¶ 13.) The commission rate varied based on the seller’s history, volume, and trust
8 level on the site, and generally ranged from 2–4%. (Id.) AlphaBay also offered a referral program
9 whereby a user received a portion of the commission earned from users referred to the site, thereby
10 encouraging existing users to introduce new users to the site and increase the sales volume. (Id.)
11 In addition, AlphaBay kept the value of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency left behind by users who
12 were banned from the site or otherwise abandoned their AlphaBay accounts. (Id.)
13 Transactions on AlphaBay occurred through cryptocurrencies hosted and controlled by
14 the site. (Id. ¶ 16.) To purchase illegal goods and services, users transferred funds into the site’s
15 cryptocurrency addresses, where the funds were held in escrow until the transactions were
16 completed. (Id.) After a transaction was completed, and AlphaBay took its commission, users
17 could send their cryptocurrencies to private addresses not controlled by the site. (Id.) Because
18 cryptocurrency transactions can in theory be traced using a public ledger maintained by peer-to-
19 peer verification, “tumblers” and “mixers” could be used to obscure the historical trail of the
20 cryptocurrencies’ movements. (Id.) Mixers and tumblers obscure transaction histories by
21 combining, splitting and re-combining Bitcoins through a series of wallets controlled by the
22 tumbler or mixer. (Id.) According to postings on AlphaBay, the site introduced a tumbler to help
23 users obscure their cryptocurrency transactions in approximately April 2016. (Id.)
24 B. Law Enforcement’s Investigation of AlphaBay and Alexandre Cazes
25 Between May 2016 and June 2017, United States law enforcement agents made numerous
26 undercover purchases of controlled substances (marijuana, heroin, fentanyl, and

27 methamphetamine), fake identification documents and an ATM skimmer from AlphaBay
28
6
1 vendors, including purchases from, and substances and other illegal items shipped to, the Eastern
2 District of California. (Id. ¶ 17.) In the course of their investigation, law enforcement agents
3 identified Alexandre Cazes as “Alpha02” and “Admin,” the founder and administrator of
4 AlphaBay. (Id. ¶ 18.) According to AlphaBay’s FAQs, “AlphaBay Market . . . [was] founded by
5 alpha02, reputable member on most carding forums . . . [a]fter some time helping others on
6 carding forums, he decided to start his own marketplace and allow sellers from around the world
7 to sell goods to buyers worldwide.” (Id.) In August 2015, the username for the AlphaBay
8 administrator account changed from “Alpha02” to “Admin.” (Id. ¶ 20.) The AlphaBay profile
9 for Admin at the time the site was taken down showed that it was the same account previously
10 labeled “Alpha02” and that moniker was simply changed. (Id.)
11 In December 2016, law enforcement learned that Cazes’ personal email was included in
12 the header of AlphaBay’s “welcome email” to new users in December 2014. (Id. ¶ 21.)
13 Specifically, soon after AlphaBay was launched, the site established an associated online forum
14 allowing customers and vendors to discuss their business. (Id.) One feature of the sign-up process
15 was new users had to provide an email address for password recovery in case the user lost his/her
16 password. (Id.) Once new users joined the forums and entered their private email accounts, they
17 were greeted with an email directly from AlphaBay welcoming them to the forums. (Id.) The
18 email address of “[email protected]” was included in the header information of the

19 AlphaBay welcome email. (Id.) Cazes’ personal email was also included in the header of
20 AlphaBay’s “password recovery process” used by AlphaBay forum users who lost their
21 passwords. (Id. ¶ 22.)
22 Law enforcement subsequently learned the “[email protected]” email address
23 belonged to a Canadian man named Alexandre Cazes with a birthdate of October 19, 1991. (Id.
24 ¶ 23.) Cazes was a self-described independent website designer affiliated with a company called
25 EBX Technologies. (Id.) Law enforcement uncovered additional facts indicating that Cazes was
26 “Alpha02,” including financial transaction information linking Cazes to AlphaBay and financial
27 records indicating that Cazes had many millions of dollars’ worth of investments throughout the
28
7
1 world without any lawful source. (Id. ¶ 25.) Additionally, Cazes was logged into the AlphaBay
2 website as “Admin” on July 5, 2017, when law enforcement executed a search warrant at his
3 residence, and was in active communication with one of the AlphaBay data centers about a law
4 enforcement-created service outage on the site. (Id.) Finally, passwords to AlphaBay’s servers
5 and other infrastructure were found on Cazes’ personal computer at his residence. (Id.)
6 Law enforcement further determined that Cazes owned and controlled EBX
7 Technologies, a front company he used to justify his banking activity and substantial
8 cryptocurrency holdings. (Id. ¶ 26.) Although EBX Technologies claims to provide web design
9 services, the website for EBX Technologies is barely functional and does not appear to support
10 any substantial business operations. (Id.) A review of EBX Technologies’ current bank records
11 show little to no business income or banking activity. (Id.) In the years before his arrest, Cazes
12 maintained several bank accounts in the name of “EBX Technologies” and used these “business”
13 bank accounts to create digital exchange accounts so he could liquidate and manage his
14 cryptocurrency. (Id.)
15 C. Related Criminal Case
16 On June 1, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
17 California issued a warrant for Cazes’ arrest based upon an Indictment in United States v.
18 Alexandre Cazes case number 1:17–cr–00144–LJO–SKO, charging Cazes with sixteen criminal
19 counts, including conspiracy to engage in a racketeer influenced corrupt organization, in violation
20 of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d); conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws of the
21 United States in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C),
22 & 846; conspiracy to commit identity theft and access device fraud in violation of Title 18, United
23 States Code, Sections 1028(f) and 1029(b)(2); unlawful transfer of a false identification document
24 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1028(a)(2), (b)(1)(A)(ii), & (f); trafficking
25 in device making equipment in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1029(a)(4),
26 (b)(1), and (c)(1)(A)(ii); and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of Title 18,
27 United States Code, Section 1956(h). (Id. ¶ 28.) The Indictment against Cazes further sought to
28
8
1 forfeit all the assets connected to the criminal organization known as AlphaBay. (Id.) On April
2 27, 2018, the Court dismissed all sixteen counts of the Indictment following Cazes’ death. (See
3 Case No. 1:17–cr–00144–LJO–SKO (Docs. 10, 11).)
4 D. Seizure Warrants
5 On June 20, 2017, a federal judge found probable cause existed to seize a luxury vehicle
6 and eleven bank and cryptocurrency exchange accounts traceable to unlawful proceeds generated
7 from AlphaBay, and issued seizure warrants for those assets located in Thailand. (Am. Compl. ¶
8 31.) Law enforcement traced Bitcoin transactions originating with AlphaBay to digital currency
9 accounts, and ultimately bank accounts and other tangible assets, held by Cazes and his wife,
10 Sunisa Thapsuwan. (Id.) Cazes concealed and disguised funds obtained illicitly through
11 AlphaBay by commingling the criminal proceeds in digital currency exchange accounts and bank
12 accounts controlled by Cazes and his wife, and using an automated mixing and tumbling
13 procedure designed to conceal the source of the criminal funds when converting Bitcoin (and
14 other cryptocurrencies) to currency. (Id.)
15 The warrants sought the seizure of assets connected to Cazes in Thailand, Liechtenstein,
16 and the Republic of Cyprus where Cazes pursued economic citizenship by purchasing expensive
17 real property in the country. (Id. ¶ 32.) In Thailand, where Cazes lived with his wife, law
18 enforcement identified numerous bank and digital exchange accounts connected to Cazes
19 containing ill-gotten proceeds from the operation of AlphaBay. (Id.) Cazes used the digital
20 exchange accounts to liquidate his cryptocurrency, most often Bitcoin, to currency, so he could
21 freely spend it in Thailand and other countries on luxury cars, real estate holdings, and other
22 assets. (Id.)
23 E. July 5, 2017, Arrest and Search in Thailand
24 On July 5, 2017, the Royal Thai Police executed an arrest warrant for Alexandre Cazes,
25 as well as a search warrant, with assistance from the FBI and DEA, at his primary residence in
26 Bangkok, Thailand. (Id. ¶ 33.) At the time of his arrest, law enforcement discovered Cazes’
27 laptop open and in an unencrypted state. (Id.) The laptop was in Cazes’ bedroom and logged into
28
9
1 the AlphaBay forums and the server that hosted the AlphaBay website under the username
2 “Admin.” (Id.)
3 With the computer unlocked and unencrypted, the Royal Thai Police, FBI and DEA
4 searched Cazes’ computer and found several open text files that identified the passwords/passkeys
5 for the AlphaBay website, all of the AlphaBay servers, and other online identities associated with
6 AlphaBay. (Id. ¶ 34.) As a result of the password discovery, law enforcement seized all the
7 information and cryptocurrency on the AlphaBay servers. (Id.) The Royal Thai Police, FBI and
8 DEA also discovered a file on Cazes’ computer that identified the value and location of Cazes’
9 assets obtained from AlphaBay. (Id. ¶ 35.) The document was modeled after a personal financial
10 statement—listing “TOTAL NET WORTH” in bold at the top of the document. (Id.) Below the
11 net worth heading, Cazes broke down his “holdings” into various subcategories such as “Asset
12 holdings,” “Cash holdings,” as well as by each distinct cryptocurrency (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum,
13 Monero, and Zcash) and method of storage. (Id.) According to his financial statement, Cazes
14 had a net worth of $23,033,975. (Id.)
15 Under the “Assets” heading of the document, Cazes identified four vehicles and six real
16 properties that he valued at more than $12.5 million. (Id. ¶ 36.) Cazes’ own list of hard assets
17 matched law enforcement’s understanding of Cazes’ purchases of luxury vehicles and foreign real
18 estate. (Id.) Cazes identified several real estate holdings in Thailand, including the residence
19 searched by law enforcement and the adjacent villa he purchased for his in-laws. (Id.) Cazes also
20 identified a vacation property he purchased in Phuket, Thailand, and a new home being built in
21 the Granada Pinklao-Phetkasem housing estate in Bangkok, Thailand, as well as luxury foreign
22 properties in Antigua and Barbuda (“Antigua”) and in Cyprus, where he was attempting to obtain
23 economic citizenship by purchasing expensive real property. (Id.) Cyprus allows for the purchase
24 of citizenship with a direct investment of at least €2 million in real estate and law enforcement
25 intercepted a package Cazes sent to Cyprus indicating he transferred €2.38 million to a bank in
26 Cyprus for the purchase of a villa in that country. (Id.) Cazes previously obtained economic
27
28
10
1 citizenship in Antigua based on a $400,000 investment in Antiguan beachfront property that
2 qualified for the country’s citizenship by investment program. (Id.)
3 The “Assets” portion of Cazes’ document also identified the luxury vehicles he purchased
4 and drove in Thailand, where the cost is double or triple the cost of comparable vehicles in the
5 United States or Europe. (Id. ¶ 37.) Cazes identified a “Lambo,” meaning a Lamborghini, which
6 he purchased for over $900,000, a “Mini” Cooper his wife used valued at $81,000, a BMW
7 motorcycle worth $21,000, and a Porsche Panamera worth $292,957. (Id.)
8 Cazes’ financial statement next identified “Banks” and categorized his bank holdings by
9 the first initial of each Thai financial institution: “K” for “Kasikorn Bank,” “B” for “Bangkok
10 Bank,” and “S” for “Siam Bank.” (Id. ¶ 38.) Each abbreviation identified a balance that matched
11 law enforcement’s analysis of Cazes’ bank holdings in Thailand. (Id.) Written below the Thai
12 bank accounts and balances were Cazes’ foreign bank accounts, including an account in
13 Switzerland containing $781,000 and several accounts at Loyal Bank Limited, a private offshore
14 bank located in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. (Id.)
15 Cazes’ financial statement identified cash holdings of over $770,000 and $6.5 million in
16 cryptocurrency. (Id. ¶ 39.) Similar to the bank abbreviations, Cazes abbreviated his
17 cryptocurrency holdings—“BTC” for Bitcoin, “ETH” for Ethereum, “XMR” for Monero, and
18 “ZEC” for Zcash. (Id.) Written next to these wallet addresses were the “private keys” that
19 allowed law enforcement to unlock the controls and move the cryptocurrency within each wallet
20 address to a secure government-controlled address. (Id.) In total, from Cazes’ wallets and
21 computer, agents took control of approximately $8,800,000 in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Moreno, and
22 Zcash, broken down as follows: 1,605.0503851 Bitcoin, 8,309.271639 Ethereum, 3,691.98 Zcash,
23 and an unknown amount of Monero. (Id.)
24 Cazes’ computer also contained documents showing his involvement and ownership of a
25 company named “Brilliant Landmark Concept Limited.” (Id. ¶ 40.) In a document titled,
26 “Resolution of Board of Directors of Brilliant Landmark Concept Limited” an “attorney-in-fact”

27 authorizes “the Company” to open a bank account at Loyal Bank Limited. (Id.) Cazes is
28
11
1 identified as “the Company” and sole authorized user of the bank account at Loyal Bank. (Id.)
2 The document is dated February 15, 2017. (Id.)
3 F. Search and Seizure of AlphaBay Servers
4 Law enforcement also identified and seized certain servers that hosted AlphaBay
5 cryptocurrency wallets including servers 3203a/b, 3164, 8131, 10073 listed in the Defendant
6 Assets. (Id. ¶ 41.) Server 3203a/b hosted an encrypted container with unencrypted bitcoin wallets
7 containing approximately 293.79476862 Bitcoin. (Id.) Server 3164 hosted Bitcoin Node that
8 included an encrypted container with a bitcoin wallet. (Id.) The wallet itself was not encrypted
9 and law enforcement found total of approximately 43.25943697 Bitcoin. (Id.) Server 8131 hosted
10 an encrypted container that included 3,525 Ethereum keypairs totaling 360.384477 Ethereum.
11 (Id.) Server 10073 hosted an encrypted container that included an unencrypted Monero wallet
12 with one address holding a balance of 11,993.15882 Monero. (Id.) In addition to the
13 cryptocurrency seizures from Servers 3203a/b, 3164, 8131, 10073, law enforcement also seized
14 information and cryptocurrency from IP addresses containing AlphaBay’s complete universe of
15 cryptocurrency. (Id.)
16 G. Economic Citizenship Seizures
17 At the time of his arrest, Cazes had successfully obtained economic citizenship in at least
18 one country and was in the process of completing a second economic citizenship investment. (Id.
19 ¶ 43.) The first, in Antigua, involved Cazes completing a citizenship application for Antigua and
20 wiring $400,000 from his account at Bangkok Bank to purchase Villa 302 at Nonsuch Bay
21 Condominiums in St. Phillip’s South, Antigua. (Id.) The Antiguan government identifies
22 Nonsuch Bay Condominiums as a qualifying real estate project for the country’s citizenship by
23 investment program. (Id.) In exchange for his $400,000 investment, Cazes and his wife were
24 issued Antiguan passports in February 2017. (Id.)
25 In April 2017, Cazes mailed a package from Bangkok to Bank Alpinum AG in
26 Liechtenstein. (Id. ¶ 44.) The package contained a contract and related instructions for the
27 transfer of €3 million to Bank Alpinum AG in Liechtenstein, as well as documents indicating a
28
12
1 €2.38 million transfer from Cazes to USB Cyprus for the purchase of a villa in that country. (Id.)
2 In the “Declaration of Source of Funds” associated with the transaction in Liechtenstein, Cazes
3 identified the funds transfer would originate from his account at Bitcoin Suisse AG in Baar,
4 Switzerland. (Id.) To verify his relation to Bitcoin Suisse AG and the details of payment from
5 the account, Cazes declared his occupation was a “Real estate / Bitcoin invest[or]” and a
6 “customer” of the bank who “sen[t] them Bitcoins, and they send USD or EUR wire transfers,”
7 exchanging Cazes’ cryptocurrency for currency. (Id.) Cazes signed the form and “declare[d] the
8 information was true and correct,” and his wife signed the Declaration as a “Witness.” (Id.)
9 Following a review of the contents of Cazes’ package, law enforcement verified that Cazes
10 made three wire transfer payments to Henley and Partners Cyprus Ltd (€714.00), M.C. Corporate
11 Services Ltd (€6,087.00), and Idania Enterprises Ltd (€4,000.00). (Id. ¶ 45.) Each transaction
12 corresponded to Cazes’ efforts to obtain economic citizenship in Cyprus—payments for a travel
13 consultant, to create a holding company for the property purchased to obtain economic citizenship
14 in Cyprus, and corporate services for Cazes’ holding company (naming a Registered Office,
15 Corporate Secretary, Nominee Director, and Nominee Shareholder). (Id.) Additionally, when he
16 made the wire transfers, Cazes had written instructions on how to begin the purchase of Villa 1
17 located at the Sea Pearl Residences in Cyprus. (Id.) One document was a printout of an email
18 from Cazes’ travel consultant identifying the amounts to wire transfer to Cyprus to begin the villa
19 purchase, including instructions that Cazes must provide “the seller” with €4,000.00 to open the
20 transaction. (Id.)
21 III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

22 On June 1, 2017, a Grand Jury in the Eastern District of California indicted Alexandre
23 Cazes, a/k/a “Alpha02,” a/k/a “Admin,” for conspiracy to engage in a racketeer influenced corrupt
24 organization, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d) and 846, and other
25 charges related to his role at AlphaBay. (Id. ¶ 28.) On April 26, 2018, the Government moved to
26 dismiss the Indictment following Cazes’ death in July 2017. (see Case No. 1:17–cr–00144–LJO–
27
28
13
1 SKO (Doc. 10).) The Court dismissed all sixteen counts of the Indictment on April 27, 2018.
2 (see 1:17–cr–00144–LJO–SKO (Doc. 11).)
3 On July 19, 2017, the Government filed a verified civil complaint seeking forfeiture in
4 rem pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) of the Defendant
5 Assets, (Doc. 1), and on July 26, 2017, the Government filed an amended verified complaint on
6 the same grounds, (Doc. 3). Based on the allegations set forth in the amended complaint, the
7 Clerk of the Court issued a Warrant for Arrest of Articles In Rem for the Defendant Assets. (Doc.
8 4.)
9 On August 10, 2017, this Court issued an order authorizing public notice of this forfeiture
10 action for thirty consecutive days on the official internet government forfeiture site
11 www.forfeiture.gov. (Doc. 7.) Publication in a manner consistent with this Court’s order began
12 on September 27, 2017, and ran for at least thirty consecutive, as required by and Supplemental
13 Rule G(4)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture
14 Actions (hereafter “Supplemental Rules”) and Local Rule of the U.S. District Court for the
15 Eastern District of California 500(d). (Doc. 13.) Proof of such publication was filed with the
16 Court on October 27, 2017. (Id.) The Government also caused notice to be delivered to various
17 individuals with a suspected potential interest in the Defendant Assets in a manner reasonably
18 likely to reach them, as follows:

19 1. On September 29, 2017, the Government mailed Cazes’ mother, Danielle Heroux,
20 copies of the amended complaint, notice of complaint, warrant for arrest, application
21 and order for publication, notice of related cases, order setting mandatory scheduling
22 conference, standing order in all civil cases assigned to District Judge Lawrence J.
23 O’Neill, and court notices (hereafter “complaint documents”) by Federal Express
24 (“FedEx”) delivery to her address in Canada. (See Doc. 53-2, Declaration of Tammy
25 Teglia in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Default Judgment and Final Judgment of
26 Forfeiture (“Teglia Decl.”) ¶ 4.) FedEx records show the package was delivered to
27 Danielle Heroux on October 2, 2017. (Id.)
28
14
1 2. On September 29, 2017, the Government mailed Alexandre Cazes’ father, Martin
2 Cazes, the complaint documents by FedEx delivery to his address in Canada. (See
3 Teglia Decl. ¶ 3.) FedEx records show the package was delivered to Martin Cazes on
4 October 3, 2017. (Id.)
5 3. On November 21, 2017, the Government mailed KGYJ Management Limited, Ace
6 Guide Holding, and Brilliant Landmark Concept Limited, the complaint documents
7 by FedEx delivery to their addresses of record in Hong Kong. (See Teglia Decl. ¶¶ 5–
8 7.) FedEx records show the package was delivered to the companies on November
9 24, 2017. (Id.) Cazes created KGYJ Management Limited, Ace Guide Holding, and
10 Brilliant Landmark Concept Limited as nominee companies to hold his property and
11 avoid law enforcement detection, including a condo in Cyprus, vacation property in
12 Phuket, Thailand, and new house under construction in Bangkok, Thailand. (See Am.
13 Compl. ¶ 40; Doc. 53-1, Declaration of Jennifer Sanchez in Support of Ex Parte
14 Motion for Default Judgment and Final Judgment of Forfeiture (“Sanchez Decl.”) ¶¶
15 4, 6.)
16 4. On December 19, 2017, Antiguan law enforcement personally served Nonsuch
17 Management Limited, c/o Manager Cameron Fraser, with the complaint documents at
18 Nonsuch Bay Resort, Nonsuch Bay, St. Phillips, Antigua and Barbuda. (Teglia Decl.
19 ¶ 8.) Nonsuch Management Limited is the affiliated developer and property manager
20 of the defendant Antiguan condominium purchased by Cazes for $400,000 using funds
21 from his Bangkok Bank account in Thailand. (Sanchez Decl. ¶ 5.)
22 5. On December 21, 2017, Thai law enforcement personally served Cazes’ wife, Sunisa
23 Thapsuwan (Cazes), in her personal capacity and as Executor of the Estate of
24 Alexandre Cazes, with the complaint documents at her residence in Bangkok,
25 Thailand. (Teglia Decl. ¶ 9–10.)
26 6. On January 22, 2018, the Government mailed Hatrox Limited, the complaint
27 documents and Minute Order dated October 17, 2017, by FedEx delivery to its address
28
15
1 in Cyprus. (Teglia Decl. ¶ 11.) FedEx records show the package was delivered to
2 Hatrox Limited on January 29, 2018. (Id.) Cazes created Hatrox Limited. to hold title
3 to his $2 million condominium in Cyprus, which he purchased to qualify for the
4 country’s citizenship by investment program. (Sanchez Decl. ¶ 3.)
5 7. On January 31, 2018, law enforcement personally served Yaman Properties Co.
6 Limited, with the complaint documents. (Teglia Decl. ¶ 12.) Cazes created Yaman
7 Properties Co. Limited to hold title to his home being built in the Granada Pinklao-
8 Phetkasem housing estate in Bangkok, Thailand, which he purchased for several
9 million dollars in cash. (Sanchez Decl. ¶¶ 6–7)
10 The Government also worked with the governments of Thailand, Antigua, and Cyprus to
11 post copies of the Notice of Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem on the real properties
12 purchased by Cazes in each of those respective countries, as follows:
13 1. On December 19, 2017, notice of this action was posted at #302 Nonsuch Bay
14 Condominiums (C-200080017, LOT #9) in St. Phillips South, Antigua. (Doc. 27.)
15 2. On December 21, 2017, notice of this action was posted at 514 and 522 Soi 28 off
16 Phutta Monthon Sai 3 in Bangkok, Thailand. (Docs. 24–25.)
17 3. On January 19, 2018, notice of this action was posted at 1399/8 Granada Pin Klao-
18 Phet Kasem Housing Estate, Kanchana Phisk Road, Khwaeng Bang Khae Nua Road
19 Khwaeng Sala Thammasop in Bangkok, Thailand. (Doc. 37.)
20 4. On January 22, 2018, notice of this action was posted at Villa Torcello, 28/18 Moo 6,
21 Kamala, Kathu in Phuket, Thailand. (Doc. 38.)
22 5. On March 1, 2018, notice of this action was posted at Villa 1 at the Sea Pearl
23 Residences in Paralimni Famagusta, Cyprus. (Doc. 41.)
24 Accordingly, Notices of Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem have been posted on each of
25 the six real properties identified in the Amended Verified Complaint as required by 18 U.S.C. §
26 985. (Docs. 24–25, 27, 37–38, 41.)

27
28
16
1 Additionally, the Government executed arrest warrants in rem for the defendant
2 cryptocurrency in the government’s control, the bank account in Liechtenstein, and eleven bank
3 accounts in Thailand. (See Docs. 11, 21, 43.) The Government also executed arrest warrants in
4 rem for the defendant cryptocurrency from AlphaBay’s servers as well as the defendant vehicles
5 being stored in Thailand, which include a 2013 Lamborghini Aventador, a Porsche Panamera, a
6 Mini Cooper, and a BMW motorcycle. (See Docs. 46, 52.)
7 On November 14, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered default against Cazes’ parents, Martin
8 Cazes and Danielle Heroux. (Docs. 18–19.) On January 11, 2018, the Clerk of Court entered
9 default against Ace Guide Holding, Brilliant Landmark Concept Limited, and KGYJ Management
10 Limited. (Doc. 29.) On January 31, 2018, the Clerk of Court entered default against Cazes’ wife
11 Sunisa Thapsuwan (Cazes), Nonsuch Management Limited, and the Estate of Alexandre Cazes.
12 (Docs. 34–36.) On March 2, 2018, the Clerk of Court entered default against Hatrox Limited
13 (Doc. 42) and on March 23, 2018, the Clerk of Court entered default against Yaman Properties
14 Co. Limited (Doc. 48). Thus, the Clerk of the Court has entered default against all the Known
15 Claimants. The Government filed the present Ex Parte Motion for Default Judgment and Final
16 Judgment of Forfeiture on June 1, 2018. (Doc. 54.) No opposition has been filed to the
17 Government’s Motion.
18 IV. DISCUSSION
19 A. Legal Standard
20 The Government seeks judgment against the interests of the Known Claimants, and also
21 seeks final judgment of forfeiture against all other unknown potential claimants. The
22 Supplemental Rules themselves do not provide a procedure to seek default judgment in an action
23 in rem. However, Supplemental Rule A provides: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also
24 apply to the foregoing proceedings except to the extent that they are inconsistent with these
25 Supplemental Rules.”
26
27
28
17
1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) provides that a court has discretion to enter
2 default judgment against a party and provides as follows:
3
(2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default
4 judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent
person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary
5 who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has
appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be
6
served with written notice of the application at least 7 days before the hearing. The
7 court may conduct hearings or make referrals—preserving any federal statutory
right to a jury trial—when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct
8 an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any
allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter.
9
10 In considering whether to enter default judgment, courts consider the following factors: (1) the
11 possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the
12 sufficiency of the compliant; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a
13 dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7)
14 the strong policy of favoring decision on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72
15 (9th Cir. 1986). Upon default, the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability
16 are taken as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987);
17 United States v. Approximately $30,000.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 1:13–cv–1542 GSA, 2015 WL
18 5097707, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015). Accord Dundee Cement Co. v. Highway Pipe &
19 Concrete Products, Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983).
20 In the context of an in rem forfeiture action, a court considering default judgment should
21 also consider the procedural requirements set forth by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of
22 2000, 18 U.S.C. § 983; the Supplemental Rules; and the Court’s Local Rules for Admiralty and
23 in rem actions. See United States v. $191,910.00, 16 F.3d 1051, 1069 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining
24 that, because civil forfeiture is a “harsh and oppressive procedure which is not favored by the
25 courts,” the Government carries the burden of demonstrating its strict adherence to procedural
26 rules), superseded by statute on other grounds.

27
28
18
1 B. Procedural Requirements
2 1. Sufficiency of the Complaint

3 Pursuant to the Supplemental Rules, the Government must file a verified complaint that
4 (1) states the grounds for jurisdiction and venue, (2) describes the property being forfeited
5 including the location of tangible property, (3) identifies the statute under which the forfeiture
6 action is brought, and (4) includes sufficient factual detail to support a reasonable belief that the
7 Government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(2).
8 Though the sufficiency of the factual detail of the verified complaint is a higher standard than
9 “notice pleading,” it is still a “low bar.” United States v. Aguilar, 782 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir.
10 2015). With respect to drug crimes, the Government is not required to show a direct relationship
11 between the proceeds of a drug crime and a specific drug transaction. Rather, circumstantial
12 evidence may support the forfeiture of the proceeds of a drug crime. See United States v.
13 $30,670.00, 403 F.3d 448, 467–70 (7th Cir. 2005) (concluding that the totality of the
14 circumstances demonstrated that an airline passenger’s cash hoard was connected to drug
15 trafficking and subject to forfeiture); United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F.3d 1149, 1160 (11th
16 Cir. 2004) (applying totality of the circumstances to determine that cash carried by airline
17 passenger was the proceeds of, or traceable to, an illegal drug transaction); Approximately
18 $30,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 2015 WL 5097707, at *6.
19 Here, the Government filed a verified a complaint and identified the bases for jurisdiction
20 as 28 U.S.C. § 1355(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 981. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) The verified
21 amended complaint further states that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1355(b)(2) and
22 1395(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 981(h) because law enforcement agents made multiple undercover
23 purchases of controlled substances, fake identification documents, and other illegal items from
24 AlphaBay vendors, including purchases made from, and illegal items shipped to, the Eastern
25 District of California. (Id. ¶ 3.)
26 //
27
28
19
1 Next, the amended verified complaint describes the Defendant Assets being forfeited with
2 particularity including the location of the vehicles and real property included in the Defendant
3 Assets. (Id. ¶ 1.) The amended verified complaint also states that the Defendant Assets are subject
4 to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to three statutory provisions: 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(A),
5 (a)(1)(C), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). (Id. ¶¶ 46–59; see also Doc. 53 at 19.) First, under 18
6 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), property subject to forfeiture includes “[a]ny property, real or personal,
7 involved in a transaction in violation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of [Title 18], or any property
8 traceable to such property.” Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), commonly known as the money
9 laundering statute, makes it a crime to knowingly conduct, or attempt to conduct, a financial
10 transaction involving the proceeds of “specified unlawful activity,” either with the intent to
11 promote the carrying on of the unlawful activity, or knowing that the transaction is designed to
12 conceal the nature of the proceeds of the unlawful activity. For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1956,
13 “specified unlawful activity” includes, among other things, violations of federal drug laws,
14 including 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), which makes it a crime to “manufacture, distribute, or dispense,
15 or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” See 18
16 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(C). Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) further provides that any person who conspires
17 to commit any crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 or 1957 is subject to the same penalties as the
18 underlying crime that was the object of the conspiracy.

19 Second, under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), property subject to forfeiture also includes “[a]ny
20 property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation
21 of . . . any offense constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of
22 this title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.” The term “specified unlawful activity”
23 includes “racketeering activity” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), which in turn, includes
24 violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (fraud in connection with identification documents), 18 U.S.C. §
25 1029 (fraud in connection with access devices), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 (money laundering);
26 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 843, and 846 (drug trafficking, use of a communication facility, and
27 conspiracy). 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(A).
28
20
1 Third, under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), property subject to forfeiture to the United States
2 includes:
3 All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value

furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a
4 controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all
proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable
5 instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any
6 violation of this subchapter.
7 With respect to the requirement that the complaint include sufficient factual detail to support a
8 reasonable belief that the Government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial, the Court
9 finds the allegations in the Government’s amended verified complaint provide sufficient evidence
10 to reasonably believe that the Defendant Assets were involved in a transaction in violation of 18
11 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 or 1960, or are traceable to property involved in such a transaction; derived
12 from proceeds traceable to a violation of an offense constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’
13 under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), or a conspiracy to commit such an offense; and/or constitute
14 “moneys” furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance or was
15 used or intended to be used to facilitate one or more violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841, et seq.
16 Specifically, the Government alleges that Cazes founded and operated AlphaBay, the world’s
17 largest dark web marketplace for illegal goods and services, and knowingly assisted the buyers
18 and sellers on the marketplace conceal the nature of these illegal transactions. (Am. Compl. ¶¶
19 4–6, 11.)
20 AlphaBay charged a commission for every transaction conducted by its users, which
21 included sales of malware, controlled substances, chemicals, guns, stolen financial information,
22 and counterfeit documents, among other illegal goods and services. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 13.) Federal agents
23 traced Bitcoin transactions originating with AlphaBay to digital currency accounts, and ultimately
24 bank accounts and other tangible assets held by Cazes and his wife. (Id. ¶ 31.) According to the
25 Government, Cazes concealed and disguised the illicit source of the funds by commingling the
26 criminal proceeds in digital currency exchange accounts and bank accounts controlled by Cazes
27 and his wife, and using an automated mixing and tumbling procedure designed to conceal the
28
21
1 source of the criminal funds when converting Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) to currency.
2 (Id.)
3 At the time of Cazes’ arrest, his laptop was logged into the server that hosted the AlphaBay
4 website and law enforcement personnel identified several passwords/passkeys for the AlphaBay
5 website, all the AlphaBay servers, and other online identities associated with AlphaBay. (Id. ¶
6 33–34.) As a result of the password discovery, law enforcement identified all the information on
7 the AlphaBay servers, including the cryptocurrency wallets contained on each server. (Id. ¶ 34,
8 41.) Law enforcement personnel also discovered a document that identified the value and location
9 of Cazes’ assets obtained from AlphaBay’s revenues including the vehicles, real properties, bank
10 accounts, and cryptocurrency holdings that are included in the Defendant Assets. (Id. ¶¶ 35–40.)
11 “In the absence of assertion of interests in the Defendant [Assets], the Court will not question the
12 facts supporting [their] forfeiture[.]” Approximately $30,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 2015 WL
13 5097707, at *6. The Court therefore finds that the facts, as alleged, provide a sufficient connection
14 between the Defendant Assets and illegal money laundering, racketeering, fraud, and drug
15 activity, to support a forfeiture.
16 2. Notice by Publication
17 Subject to certain exceptions not present here, the Supplemental Rules require the
18 Government to publish notice of the forfeiture in a manner that is reasonably calculated to notify
19 potential claimants of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(iv). The content of the notice
20 must describe the property with reasonable particularity, state the times to file a claim and to
21 answer the complaint, and identify the name of the Government attorney to be served with the
22 claim and answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(ii)(A)–(C). This notice requirement may be
23 satisfied by posting a notice on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least thirty
24 consecutive days. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(iv)(C).
25 Here, publication occurred on the official internet government forfeiture site
26 (www.forfeiture.gov) for thirty consecutive days. (Doc. 13.) The Government filed a Declaration
27
28
22
1 of Publication stating that notice had been created and published on the forfeiture website for 30
2 days, beginning on September 27, 2017. (Id.) A copy of the notice was attached to the Declaration
3 of Publication, which described the property with reasonable particularity including the locations
4 of the real properties, license plate numbers and locations of the vehicles, account numbers and
5 names on the bank accounts, and virtual addresses of the cryptocurrency, making up the
6 Defendant Assets. (Doc. 13, Attach. 1.) The notice clearly stated the time requirements to file a
7 claim and an answer. (Id.) Further, the notice provided the name of the attorney to be served
8 with any claim and answer. (Id.) Thus, the Supplemental Rule’s notice-content requirements
9 have been satisfied. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(ii)(A)–(C). Additionally, the notice was
10 published for thirty consecutive days from September 27, 2017, through October 26, 2017, on the
11 forfeiture website, which satisfies the Supplemental Rule’s notice requirements with regard to
12 frequency and means. (Doc. 13, Attach. 2.)
13 3. Personal Notice
14 When the Government knows the identity of the property owner, the Due Process Clause
15 of the Fifth Amendment requires “the Government to make a greater effort to give him notice
16 than otherwise would be mandated.” United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1315 (9th
17 Cir. 1998). In such cases, the Government must attempt to provide notice by means reasonably
18 calculated under all circumstances to apprise the owner of the pendency of the forfeiture action.
19 Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168 (2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(b).
20 “Reasonable notice, however, requires only that the [G]overnment attempt to provide actual
21 notice; it does not require that the [G]overnment demonstrate that it was successful in providing
22 actual notice.” Mesa Valderrama v. United States 417 F.3d 1189, 1197 (11th Cir. 2005); Real
23 Property, 135 F.3d at 1316.
24 The Supplemental Rules indicate that the Government must send notice of the forfeiture
25 action “to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the
26 government.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(4)(b)(i). The notice must include the following
27
28
23
1 information: the date when the notice is sent; a deadline for filing a claim that is at least thirty-
2 five days after the notice is sent; that an answer or a motion under Rule 12 must be filed no later
3 than twenty-one days after filing the claim; and the name of the government attorney to be served
4 with the claim and answer. Id. Here, the Government provided notice of the forfeiture action by
5 mailing copies of the required documentation via FedEx delivery to Martin Cazes, Danielle
6 Heroux, KGYJ Management Limited, Ace Guide Holding, Brilliant Landmark Concept Limited,
7 and Hatrox Limited. (See Docs. 17, 28.) Additionally, the Government personally served court
8 documents on Nonsuch Management Limited on December 19, 2017; Cazes’ wife Sunisa
9 Thapsuwan (Cazes) and the Estate of Alexandre Cazes on December 21, 2017; and Yaman
10 Properties Co. Limited on January 31, 2018. (Docs. 32–33, 47.) Therefore, reasonable attempts
11 at serving notice on the Known Claimants were made.
12 4. Notice Requirements Involving Real Property

13 In civil forfeiture cases involving real property, Congress has eliminated the need for the
14 issuance and service of a warrant of arrest in rem. 18 U.S.C. § 985(c)(3) (“If real property has
15 been posted in accordance with this subsection, it shall not be necessary for the court to issue an
16 arrest warrant in rem, or to take any other action to establish in rem jurisdiction over the
17 property.”) Instead, the United States may initiate a forfeiture action against real property by
18 “posting a notice of the complaint on the property[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 985(c)(1)(B). Here, the
19 Government posted copies of the Notice of Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem on the real
20 properties purchased by Cazes in Antigua, Thailand, and Cyprus. (Docs. 24–25, 27, 37–38, 41.)
21 Accordingly, the Government provided proper notice of forfeiture of the real properties included
22 in the Defendant Assets.
23 5. The Time to File a Claim or an Answer
24 Pursuant to the Supplemental Rules, any person who asserts an interest in or a right in a
25 forfeiture action must file a claim with the Court within the time specified by the direct notice.
26 Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(4)(b)(ii)(B), (5)(a)(ii)(A). Failure to comply with the procedural
27
28
24
1 requirements for opposing the forfeiture precludes a person from establishing standing in the
2 forfeiture proceeding. Real Property, 135 F.3d at 1317.
3 Here, more than thirty days have passed since the completion of publication, and more
4 than thirty-five days have passed since the date that the Known Claimants were provided direct
5 notice of the Government’s complaint in this action. Accordingly, the time to file a claim has
6 expired, and pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of the Court
7 properly entered defaults against Martin Cazes and Danielle Heroux on November 14, 2017;
8 KGYJ Management Limited, Ace Guide Holding, and Brilliant Landmark Concept Limited on
9 January 11, 2018; Nonsuch Management Limited, Sunisa Thapsuwan (Cazes), and the Estate of
10 Alexandre Cazes on January 31, 2018; Hatrox Limited on March 2, 2018; and Yaman Properties
11 Co. Limited on March 23, 2018. (Docs. 18–19, 29, 34–36, 42, 48.)
12 6. Conclusion
13 The Court finds that the Government has met the procedural requirements applicable to
14 civil in rem forfeiture actions as set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 983 and 985, the Supplemental Rules,
15 and the Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. This favors
16 the entry of default judgment and the issuance of a final judgment in forfeiture to vest in the
17 United States all right, title, and interest in the Defendant Assets.
18 C. Discretionary Eitel Factors
19 Beyond satisfaction of the procedural requirements, the discretionary Eitel factors outlined
20 by the Ninth Circuit also favor granting the Government’s Motion. First, the Government would
21 be prejudiced by the denial of its Motion, having spent additional time and effort litigating an
22 action, with no response from the Known Claimants. Second, as set forth above, the
23 Government’s claims appear to have merit. Third, as also set forth above, the Government has
24 adhered to the procedural requirements of a forfeiture action in rem, including the filing of a
25 sufficient complaint. Fourth, although the Defendant Assets subject to forfeiture are of a
26 substantial value, this alone does not warrant denial of the Government’s Motion. Fifth, there are
27
28
25
1 no genuine disputed issues of material fact. Sixth, it does not appear that the failure of any other
2 claimant to answer is due to excusable neglect. Finally, although merits-based decisions are
3 always preferred, it is not practical where no claimant has appeared in the action, and this factor
4 is outweighed by the remainder of the Eitel factors. Accordingly, there is no impediment to
5 default judgment sought by the Government and the Court will recommend that the Motion be
6 granted.
7 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8 For the reasons discussed above, this Court RECOMMENDS that:
9 1. The Government’s Ex Parte Motion for Default Judgment against the interests of
10 Martin Cazes, Danielle Heroux, KGYJ Management Limited, Ace Guide Holding, Brilliant
11 Landmark Concept Limited, Nonsuch Management Limited, Sunisa Thapsuwan (Cazes), The
12 Estate of Alexandre Cazes, Hatrox Limited, and Yaman Properties Co. Limited, in the Defendant
13 Assets (Doc. 53) be GRANTED;
14 2. The Clerk of the Court enter a final judgment of forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
15 §§ 981(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), forfeiting all right, title, and interest in the
16 Defendant Assets to the United States to be disposed of according to law and the authorities and
17 laws of Thailand, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, and Antigua and Barbuda; and
18 3. Within fourteen (14) days of service of an order adopting these findings and
19 recommendations, the Government shall submit a proposed final judgment of forfeiture consistent
20 with the findings and recommendations and order adopting them.
21 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this
22 action, pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code § 636(b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days
23 of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and
24 recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be
25 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge
26 will review the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations pursuant to Title 28 of the
27
28
26
1 United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections
2 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v.
3 Wheeler, 772 F. 3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F. 2d 1391, 1394 (9th
4 Cir. 1991)); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7 Dated: August 7, 2018 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27

USCOURTS Caed 1 - 17 CV 00967 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCOURTS Caed 1 - 17 CV 00967 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCOURTS Caed 1 - 17 CV 00967 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What assets and properties are subject to forfeiture in this case?

What assets and properties are subject to forfeiture in this case?

What banks held accounts associated with the defendants?

What banks held accounts associated with the defendants?

Case 1:17-cv-00967-LJO-SKO Document 55 Filed 08/08/18 Page 1 of 27

3 final judgment of forfeiture of the following assets and properties:

4 1. 2013 Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4, VIN: ZHWEC1476CLA01032, Bangkok

5 Registered Plate Number: 4 Kor Kai Tor Tung – 3620 Bangkok,

6 2. Porsche Panamera S, VIN: WP0ZZZ97ZGL040783, Bangkok Registered Plate

7 Number: 5 Kor Kai Tor Tung – 1923 Bangkok,

9 4. BMW Motorcycle, License Plate Number: 5 Kokai Nonen – 2182 Bangkok,

11 Alexandre Cazes, including but not limited to accounts 228-2-15349-9, 228-2-15092-

14 Thapsuwan, including but not limited to account 935-7-00049-7,

16 name of Alexandre Cazes, including but not limited to account 7241012818,

18 Alexandre Cazes, including but not limited to accounts 007-3-86968-4,

20 Thapsuwan, including but not limited to account 073-2-53870-4,

25 of Sunisa Thapsuwan, including but not limited to account 192-2-06800-9,

2 Thammasop, Khet Thawee Watthana, Bangkok, Thailand,

4 Thammasop, Khet Thawee Watthana, Bangkok, Thailand,

13 St. Phillips South, Antigua and Barbuda,

15 secure government-controlled Bitcoin addresses:

16 18yWFVddqNrGE966zwXTpyJgYJgr82SvMs (837.81699505 BTC) and

17 1NXoCQLQqgaQU2cpBGtXTZ8NVm1cGnYD6p (721.76756789 BTC),

22 government-controlled address: t1L5QRksQxTXCB1niqp3JEu4fWTZD8W2a94

23 (formerly described as t1UAr3j9Hyt1oCMygsSLr7S3pLMuKBoNgLg),

2 government-controlled Bitcoin address:

5 government- controlled Bitcoin address:

8 government-controlled Ether address:

11 government-controlled Monero address:

15 including the servers assigned the internet protocol addresses: XX.XXX.XX.146

16 (“Server 11205”), XX.XXX.XXX.163 (“Server 6223”), XXX.XXX.XXX.225

17 (“Server 3203a”), XXX.XXX.XXX.61 (“Server 3203b”), XXX.XXX.XXX.77

18 (“Server 3164”), XX.XXX.XXX.130 (“Server 8131”), XX.XXX.XX.168 (“Server

21 media of Alexandre Cazes.

24 undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Government’s Motion be GRANTED.

1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

14 underworld marketplace.” (Id.)

20 to as digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, Monero, and Ethereum. (Id.)

13 Transactions on AlphaBay occurred through cryptocurrencies hosted and controlled by

20 cryptocurrencies’ movements. (Id.) Mixers and tumblers obscure transaction histories by

23 users obscure their cryptocurrency transactions in approximately April 2016. (Id.)

24 B. Law Enforcement’s Investigation of AlphaBay and Alexandre Cazes

26 undercover purchases of controlled substances (marijuana, heroin, fentanyl, and

10 labeled “Alpha02” and that moniker was simply changed. (Id.)

18 email address of “[email protected]” was included in the header information of the

21 passwords. (Id. ¶ 22.)

22 Law enforcement subsequently learned the “[email protected]” email address

15 C. Related Criminal Case

3 Case No. 1:17–cr–00144–LJO–SKO (Docs. 10, 11).)

14 other cryptocurrencies) to currency. (Id.)

23 E. July 5, 2017, Arrest and Search in Thailand

14 had a net worth of $23,033,975. (Id.)

1 citizenship in Antigua based on a $400,000 investment in Antiguan beachfront property that

2 qualified for the country’s citizenship by investment program. (Id.)

7 motorcycle worth $21,000, and a Porsche Panamera worth $292,957. (Id.)

14 bank located in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. (Id.)

23 and an unknown amount of Monero. (Id.)

26 “Resolution of Board of Directors of Brilliant Landmark Concept Limited” an “attorney-in-fact”