About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/relwdmts0050 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations JUDGMENTS CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 2. Judgments in Rem C.A.9, 2024. Quot. in conc. op. Federal government filed a civil-forfeiture action against the assets in a foreign bank account belonging to a Canadian fugitive residing in Dubai, who had been indicted on RICO and drug-trafficking charges. The district court, purporting to exercise in rem jurisdiction over fugitive's assets, granted government's motion to strike fugitive's claim of innocent ownership over the assets under the fugitive disentitlement statute. This court vacated and remanded, holding that due process required the district court to establish control or constructive control over property in a forfeiture action for it to be able to exercise in rem jurisdiction over the property. The concurring opinion explained that the case was nonjusticiable until the government seized or controlled fugitive's property, citing Restatement of Judgments § 2 in pointing out that if the court did not have jurisdiction over the property, the judgment was open to collateral attack. United States v. Nasri, 119 F.4th 1172, 1188. § 3. Judgments Quasi in Rem C.A.9, 2024. Quot. in conc. op. Federal government filed a civil-forfeiture action against the assets in a foreign bank account belonging to a Canadian fugitive residing in Dubai, who had been indicted on RICO and drug-trafficking charges. The district court, purporting to exercise in rem jurisdiction over fugitive's assets, granted government's motion to strike fugitive's claim of innocent ownership over the assets under the fugitive disentitlement statute. This court vacated and remanded, holding that due process required the district court to establish control or constructive control over property in a forfeiture action for it to be able to exercise in rem jurisdiction over the property. The concurring opinion pointed out that the case was nonjusticiable until the government seized or controlled fugitive's property and that this defect in the court's jurisdiction could be cured by a quasi in rem proceeding, in which a court could request that a foreign government secure the property subject to the forfeiture proceedings and any competing claims to the property under Restatement of Judgments § 3. United States v. Nasri, 119 F.4th 1172, 1192. COPYRIGHT C2025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.