Cases 1 - 7 of 7
United States of America v. $22,000.00 in United States Currency
as 2:2017cv00998
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
$22,000.00 in United States Currency
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 0881
USA v. $22,000.00 in United States Currency et al
as 3:2014cv00597
Plaintiff:
USA
Defendant:
$22,000.00 in United States Currency and $364.00 in United States Currency
Claimant:
Edward Hogan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
USA v. $22,000.00 in United States Currency et al
as 1:2014cv00718
Defendant:
$22,000.00 in United States Currency and $11,020.00 in United States Currency
Plaintiff:
USA
Claimant:
Ivan Tena
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881
United States of America v. $22,000.00 in United States Currency
as 1:2011cv01492
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
$22,000.00 in United States Currency
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881
United States of America v. $250,000.00 in United States Currency et al
as 4:2010cv40219
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
$250,000.00 in United States Currency, seized from Bank of America Account No. 8982331530, $75,000.00 in United States Currency, seized from Bank of America Account No. 898018373041, $25,000.00 in United States Currency, seized from Bank of America Account No. 898004312333 and others
Claimant:
Arbitrajes Financieros, Spot Market Corporation, Cypress Group C.A. and others
Cause Of Action: 49 U.S.C. § 781
United States of America v. $22,000.00 in United States Currency
as 8:2009cv00123
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
$22,000.00 in United States Currency
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Plaintiff
United States of America v. $22,000.00 in United States Currency et al
as 2:2007cv01053
Defendant:
$22,000.00 in United States Currency
Claimant:
Nigel Allen and Richard Thomas
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
