Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Hatfield

September 27, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
SANDRA HATFIELD AND DAVID H. BROOKS, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Mr. Brooks' motions to release restrained funds (Docket Nos. 1280, 1308, 1341) are DENIED. Even if, as Mr. Brooks claims, the Government is not entitled to forfeiture of all the assets currently under restraint, the Court has the authority to continue to restrain these assets "as collateral in anticipation of an Order of Restitution," which will be issued at sentencing. U.S. v. Numisgroup Intern. Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d 133, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2001). Indeed, restraining assets as collateral for restitution is particularly appropriate here, because, as Mr. Brooks represents, he "has virtually no assets at his disposal." Id. at 138; see Docket No. 1341 ("Mr. Brooks has depleted all funds available to pay for his ongoing defense").

In addition, the Clerk of the Court is directed to publish Docket No. 1341 on ECF and serve a copy on the Government. Mr. Brooks had no legitimate justification to file this motion ex parte, especially because it implicated the Government's vital interest in keeping Mr. Brooks' assets under restraint.

Central Islip, New York.

SO ORDERED.

Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.

20100927

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.