https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/10/29/22-55685.pdf
In short, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Nasri, No. 22-55685. The case involved a civil forfeiture action by the U.S. government to recover funds from Younes Nasri, a Canadian citizen residing in Dubai, alleging the funds were proceeds from criminal activities. Nasri contested the forfeiture, claiming innocent ownership and challenging the court’s jurisdiction over assets held in foreign bank accounts (in this case, Bendura in Liechtenstein).
The Court held that due process requires a court to have control or constructive control over property in a forfeiture action to establish in rem jurisdiction. The court found that the district court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction over the foreign assets, without sufficient control or possession, violated due process principles. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the court had the necessary control over the assets to satisfy due process requirements.
In short, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Nasri, No. 22-55685. The case involved a civil forfeiture action by the U.S. government to recover funds from Younes Nasri, a Canadian citizen residing in Dubai, alleging the funds were proceeds from criminal activities. Nasri contested the forfeiture, claiming innocent ownership and challenging the court’s jurisdiction over assets held in foreign bank accounts (in this case, Bendura in Liechtenstein).
The Court held that due process requires a court to have control or constructive control over property in a forfeiture action to establish in rem jurisdiction. The court found that the district court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction over the foreign assets, without sufficient control or possession, violated due process principles. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the court had the necessary control over the assets to satisfy due process requirements.
