[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Alex Bodeman on behalf of Lionel Cannon, I'd like to try to reserve four minutes for rebuttal, and I will keep my eye on the clock.

[00:00:15] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
The District Court erred by denying Mr. Cannon's motion for return of property based on his belief that the money seized from him was contraband.

[00:00:22] Speaker 04:
As this Court held in right, U.S.

[00:00:23] Speaker 04:
currency is not contraband, and the government can obtain rights to it only by prevailing in forfeiture proceedings, which has undisputed the government never did here.

[00:00:32] Speaker 04:
On appeal, the government claims that sovereign immunity bars Mr. Cannon's motion because he can't recover money the government says it does not have.

[00:00:39] Speaker 04:
But at the very least, there's a factual dispute on that point.

[00:00:42] Speaker 04:
The record shows the government began obtaining this money back from Agent Bowman as far back as 2016 and that its collection efforts have continued since then.

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
So even under the government's view of how sovereign immunity operates, there's a genuine dispute of fact that can't be resolved on summary judgment.

[00:00:58] Speaker 04:
But the government's view of sovereign immunity is also legally wrong.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
Sovereign immunity applies only to claims for money damages, but Mr. Kanan does not seek damages.

[00:01:06] Speaker 04:
Rather, as the First and Fourth Circuits have held, his motion for the return of currency seized from him seeks equitable specific relief to which sovereign immunity does not apply.

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
So I'd like to start with the framework that governs Rule 41-G motions.

[00:01:21] Speaker 04:
After the end of a criminal case, anyone who had property seized from them in connection with that case is presumptively entitled to get it back.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
It's the government's burden to rebut that presumption.

[00:01:32] Speaker 04:
And this court's case law recognizes only three ways in which it can do so.

[00:01:36] Speaker 04:
First, it can show that the property is subject to forfeiture.

[00:01:40] Speaker 04:
Second, it can show that there is some third party that has a cognizable claim of ownership to the property.

[00:01:45] Speaker 04:
And third, it can show that the property is contraband.

[00:01:49] Speaker 04:
There's no dispute that the first two categories aren't at issue here.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
The money is not subject to forfeiture because the limitations period for seeking forfeiture has expired.

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
And there's no suggestion that there's any third party with any claim to the money.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
So I guess the government's argument is that it's not the same money.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
So if there were like a brick of money that was in the safe and the government took the brick, that might be forfeitable.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
But here, the money was taken by Mr. Bowman and dispersed.

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
So now it's just different money that your client is asking for.

[00:02:22] Speaker 04:
So two points on that.

[00:02:24] Speaker 04:
I think, one, we think it

[00:02:26] Speaker 04:
whether it's the same money or not as immaterial as the first and fourth circuits have held, but even if you put that aside, you know, I don't know that the court needs to dive too deeply into the sovereign immunity issues here, because we have in the record evidence that the government has been recouping this money from Agent Bowman.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
And so I think even on... They're recouping their argument.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
Yes, they may be recouping some money, but it's not the same property that was in the safe.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
Their argument is, in effect, it damages the lost money.

[00:03:00] Speaker 04:
So I don't actually think we know whether the money they're recouping is the same money in the safe.

[00:03:04] Speaker 04:
Their argument seems to be that they don't have the money because Agent Bowman stole it, but they don't address at all the fact that they've been recouping money from him.

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
But I think even if you put that aside, what this court's decision in $277,000 says,

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
Is that when the government obtained obtains a benefit from?

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
Property that it seizes the benefit belongs to the actual owner of the property so here the government has used 277,000 is about interest and so recouping funds After they've been dispersed is not interest.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
That's there or proceeds.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
That's their argument and

[00:03:45] Speaker 04:
I didn't understand that to be arguing that, but I think the $277,000 speaks for itself, which it says when the government obtains some benefit from having the property, the benefit in orders to the original owner.

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
And here, they obtained a $136,000 judgment against Agent Bowman based on Mr. Cannon's money.

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
And what it seems like they're arguing here

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
is that the motion should be denied on sovereign immunity grounds and then they can nevertheless, you know, collect the entire budget judgment from Agent Bowman or perhaps they already have in pocket that money.

[00:04:19] Speaker 04:
And I'd submit that that can't be right.

[00:04:22] Speaker 03:
Council, if Canada had jewelry in this safe and it was jewelry that the agent stole and was then paying cash back to the government, would you have an argument here?

[00:04:33] Speaker 03:
No, I think that's we're doing it.

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
What if what if it was what if these were gold coins?

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
So I think it would depend.

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
I think if you're trying to recover for the market value of gold coins and that probably puts that in the realm of or doing as but if the gold coins have a face value on them.

[00:04:52] Speaker 03:
So if they're Krugerrands, your client would be out of luck if they're US tender.

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
You get the $20 per gold coin, but not either the numismatic value or the value of the gold itself.

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
I think I agree with that, Judge Bybee, and I think the reason why is that what these specific relief cases have recognized, what the first and fourth circuits recognized, is that money currency is just fundamentally different from other forms of property.

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
You can't put a boat into a bank, but you can put currency into a bank.

[00:05:23] Speaker 04:
And what this court said in $277,000 is when you put the currency into the bank, yes, we may not be able to get the specific bills yet, but back.

[00:05:31] Speaker 04:
But it didn't even question that you could get

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
the sum of money back, and it even said that you could earn interest on that money, interest that the claimant didn't even have at the time of seizure.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
So, you know, I think those cases make very clear that we're not talking about the specific bills.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
What the first and fourth circuits have held is when currency is seized.

[00:05:51] Speaker 04:
the claimant is entitled to get it back, regardless of whether the government can return the specific bills.

[00:05:56] Speaker 04:
But again, I think it would be perfectly sufficient for the court to say, even under the government's view of how sovereign immunity operates, there's at least a factual dispute here that can't be resolved on summary judgment and allow the district court to pass upon all these issues, which it hasn't addressed any of them.

[00:06:17] Speaker 04:
I'd just like to say, with respect to the merits, I think this case is on all fours with this court's decision in Marolf.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
There, it was a boat that was allegedly connected to drug trafficking.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
And it was a similar type of situation.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
The forfeiture was void.

[00:06:32] Speaker 04:
The statute of limitations period had run.

[00:06:34] Speaker 04:
And what this court said was the forfeiture didn't happen.

[00:06:38] Speaker 04:
There's nothing the government can do about it anymore And so the claimant is entitled to the boat back despite evidence that had the government initiated forfeiture proceedings it may well have prevailed in those proceedings and so We think that that's the case here the court shouldn't be getting into the question of where the money came from So if we if we send this back to the district court, what is the district court going to be inquiring?

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
so is going to be making is you're going to be making findings of fact about the money that your client claimed and

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
And your client claims something in the nature between what, $50,000 and $60,000?

[00:07:11] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:07:12] Speaker 04:
So I think it's undisputed that the money that was stolen by Agent Bowman from our client was $218,000, and he's claiming the whole amount.

[00:07:18] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:07:19] Speaker 03:
But the proof that he had of sort of how he acquired this was limited to about $60,000.

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
There was money from his mother and from somebody else, and it was $1,000 here and $1,000 there.

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
So I think two points on that.

[00:07:34] Speaker 04:
So the specific sums from the gifts and the vehicle sales and the like that you mentioned did add up to about $60,000.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
But the declaration also includes two years of employment income.

[00:07:46] Speaker 04:
at rates that are listed in the declaration.

[00:07:48] Speaker 04:
But I think the more fundamental point is that we're not concerned, actually, with where the money was earned at this point.

[00:07:56] Speaker 04:
The only relevant question is, was this money in Mr. Cannon's possession at the time of seizure?

[00:08:02] Speaker 04:
There's no dispute that it was.

[00:08:04] Speaker 04:
So he has presumptive title to it.

[00:08:06] Speaker 04:
He is presumptively entitled to its return no matter where it came from.

[00:08:10] Speaker 04:
Even if he could come in now and set in a declaration this was drug proceeds, the government

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
The place to litigate those issues was forfeiture proceedings.

[00:08:19] Speaker 04:
And because the government didn't initiate forfeiture, it can't try to do it through the back door here in Rule 41G.

[00:08:24] Speaker 04:
That's what Wright held.

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
If there aren't any further questions from the court at this point, I'm happy to reserve the balance of my time.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
We'll hear from the government.

[00:08:42] Speaker 02:
Good morning your honors may please the court my waters for the United States This court should affirm the district court because sovereign immunity bars money damages in 41g motions in Matters where the government no longer possesses the currency There is one uncontested fact in this matter at least one the government does not have the currency it has not possessed the currency since agent Bowman stole it from temporary storage the morning after the seizure from Mr.. Cannon and

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
Any argument that a money judgment of forfeiture constitutes the same currency misunderstands money judgment of forfeiture orders and forfeiture process?

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
Generally what if we could show that this that the serial numbers were identical to the ones that were in mr.. Cannon safe That is that that that the agent is returning the exact bills if mr.. Cannon had initialed them up in the upper upper right hand corner on the back and

[00:09:43] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, so as part of the payment in the money judgment of forfeiture, the money given to the government was the same bills?

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
Is that the question, Your Honor?

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
In that case... I mean, opposing counsel has said money's fungible, okay?

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
And so it doesn't matter.

[00:10:01] Speaker 03:
We don't have to compare social security numbers.

[00:10:04] Speaker 03:
We don't have to see, you know, which secretary of the Treasury signed the bills.

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
And so now I'm, and you seem to have, you're going to contest that, so now I'm going to ask you the hard question.

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
What happens if it turns out they actually are the same?

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
Then does the government have to give it back?

[00:10:20] Speaker 02:
There are other proceedings for, if someone purports and says they're a victim of Mr. Bowman's crime,

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
There are proceedings for victims to receive money through the money judgment.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
But if this is the money that the government said was in Cannon's safe and Cannon says I want my money back under this proceeding, you've lost your right to bring a forfeiture proceeding.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
Do you have to give it back if you can match the serial numbers?

[00:10:48] Speaker 02:
There cannot be a forfeiture proceeding against Cannon because of the statute of limitations.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
In this case, there is a money judgment of forfeiture order in the Bowman case.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
So that money can be forfeited.

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
Any money collected through the money judgment of forfeiture can be forfeited through the money judgment of forfeiture process.

[00:11:06] Speaker 02:
And so anyone who believes that they have a right to that money.

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
I don't think you're answering Judge Bobbie's question.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
And I was referring to it just as there's a brick of money that was wrapped in pink cellophane in the safe.

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
and the government took that brick, wouldn't that be forfeitable?

[00:11:27] Speaker 00:
Wouldn't the government have to return that?

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
If it was seized from Agent Bowman?

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
Exactly.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
It most likely would have been forfeited in Agent Bowman's proceedings.

[00:11:41] Speaker 02:
And anyone who claimed a right to that money through that forfeiture process would have the ability to get

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
to show their interest in property.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
But they would have to go through the Bowman forfeiture proceeding rather than through the 41G?

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
Even though, what if it had already been marked as Exhibit A in Cannon's case and then Bowman had purloined it?

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
It would be forfeited as proceeds of Bowman's crime and we have forfeiture.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
It's common.

[00:12:19] Speaker 02:
It's every day that the government will trace proceeds to crimes and they will attempt to forfeit those proceeds.

[00:12:26] Speaker 02:
And there's not, we don't use 41G where victims come in and try to take that money directly.

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
We have the forfeiture proceedings in Bowman's case.

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
And Cannon would have the ability to contest the forfeiture, say it's innocent money, it's clean money, it's not drug money, and come in and contest that forfeiture and get it back through that process.

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
41g asking for the return of it is to go around that forfeiture process in the bowman case Yeah, but this was this was this was taken from bone.

[00:13:03] Speaker 03:
I mean this was taken from cannon and it's pretty obvious right you don't dispute that You don't dispute that you're that your guy lost cannons money and

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
Well, in this scenario where everything is marked and, you know, wrapped in pink paper, it probably would be a very simple forfeiture proceeding.

[00:13:22] Speaker 02:
The government would forfeit these marked bills as proceeds of the Bowman crime.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
And if Cannon came into that proceeding and said, used all the evidence that we're talking about as far as it being marked and it's the same and was able to say that it wasn't drug proceeds,

[00:13:42] Speaker 02:
then there's a very good chance that he would have success in this case.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
The part about the forfeiture process, if it goes through the Bowman case, is that other people would have the right to make that, would be able to contest that forfeiture.

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
There were other individuals who had money seized from them, currency seized from them, that would have an interest in claiming that the currency is theirs.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
There was about 10,000 to 11,000 seized from a different individual that Bowman stole.

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
There was about $4,000 to $5,000 from another individual.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
that was seized for evidence that Bowman stole.

[00:14:14] Speaker 02:
So all those people or anyone out in the world should have an ability through the Bowman forfeiture process to claim that that is their money and that they have interest in it.

[00:14:23] Speaker 03:
Did Cannon have timely notice that Bowman had stolen his money?

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
Did Cannon have timely notice that Bowman stole his money?

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
How would he know to go to a forfeiture proceeding?

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:14:38] Speaker 02:
As part of Bowman's case, he was interviewed by the OIG and was asked about the currency in his safe and knew about the allegations of the theft.

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
So going back to Cannon's 41G case, if Cannon claimed the brick of money, as I'm calling it, and the government had the brick in its possession, there wouldn't be any question that there was jurisdiction and that the government would have to go through the 41G process and possibly give that back to him.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
41G process would be if the government seized the property and never lost custody.

[00:15:17] Speaker 00:
And so they got the brick, either they got the brick directly from the safer, they got the brick from Bowman.

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
It's the same dollars as Judge Bybee was saying.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
And then the time period for forfeiture passed and then Cannon brought this claim.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
Would he be entitled to get the brick back, the brick of money?

[00:15:36] Speaker 02:
If the government had custody of that brick the entire time?

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
Yeah, exactly.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
Yes, he would have the right to make the 41G.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
The 41G would not be out of subject matter jurisdiction as this is.

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
And so the real issue here is that there's nothing saying the government has that money.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
The opposed counsel says, well, the government recouped funds from the agent.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
But there's nothing that says it's the same dollars that were taken from the safe.

[00:16:07] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
The nature of the money judgment of forfeiture is that it's in order to pay a specific sum of money that does not necessarily have any connection to any specific property.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
There is a process with the money judgment of forfeiture through Criminal Rules of Federal Procedure 32.2 where substitute property can come in and be applied to the money judgment of forfeiture.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
So when opposing counsel argues that any money that is collected through the money judgment of forfeiture is the same currency It's just not true You could have a home that Bowman bought 20 years ago that could be applied to the money judgment of forfeiture in this case There was a car that was seized from avid moment.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
That is the car.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
It's not the currency so the argument that the money judgment forfeiture rules that the currency must be returned or there is a return and

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
That is not a money judgment of forfeiture.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
Money judgment of forfeiture is generally used when the proceeds cannot be identified, and so we must use this other means in order to forfeit a certain amount of money as to the defendant.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
This may have been the record, I missed this, but Bowman stole $218,000, but he was ordered to only return something like $136,000.

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
How did that figure come out?

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
I'm trying to see if that was somehow subtracting the thing that he already spent, and was government assuming that the $136,000 he stole was still in his safe?

[00:17:27] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
I looked into that.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
That is not on the record.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
My presumption, without having information on it, is that there most likely was a disagreement between prosecutors.

[00:17:39] Speaker 02:
and Bowman.

[00:17:39] Speaker 02:
There was not a known number of what he seized from Cannon.

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
The 11,000, approximately 11,000 and the 4,000 was in the factual basis of Bowman's plea.

[00:17:48] Speaker 02:
There was an unknown amount of money in what was stolen from Cannon's safe, stolen from the government.

[00:17:55] Speaker 01:
Is there anything in the record how much Bowman has paid back of the 136,000, if any?

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
Not in the record.

[00:18:02] Speaker 02:
I know not in the record.

[00:18:03] Speaker 02:
I'm happy to provide that information.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
So opposing counsel says 277,000 case controls this one.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
Is that distinguishable?

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
My understanding was you were arguing that that was about interest, but he was saying it applies here.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
Well, this court made clear in the 277,000 case is that it was about the interest and the interest was part of the substitute res.

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
What I want to make clear is the government is not arguing that Substitute Rez in changing money or seizing money and putting it into a seizing account where seized funds are held or in Meroff where there's a boat that's seized and it's sold and it turns into Substitute Rez.

[00:18:50] Speaker 02:
The government is not arguing that Substitute Rez cannot be the subject of a 41-G motion.

[00:18:55] Speaker 02:
So in that $277,000, it was seized.

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
It was put into a seized holding account.

[00:19:00] Speaker 02:
It was never forfeited.

[00:19:01] Speaker 02:
It was never dispersed.

[00:19:02] Speaker 02:
So in the $277,000 case, this court argued,

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
Interest was part of the substitute res and made the analogy that in asking for the return of a pregnant cow, in order to return a cow that's no longer pregnant, it doesn't make sense to not also return the calf.

[00:19:19] Speaker 02:
So the interest is part of that substitute res.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
So in any case where there is substitute res, like Meroff or 277, it's quite common that the government will seize money and put it in the holding account or have an interlocutory sale.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
We are not arguing that that would preclude a 41-G motion.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
In this case that we have, the stolen currency did not turn into anything else.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
It's gone.

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
Should the court not have any further questions?

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
For the reason stated.

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
You have some time for rebuttal.

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:08] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:09] Speaker 04:
I'd like to pick up where the government just left off with the substitute race issue.

[00:20:13] Speaker 04:
The substitute race here is the judgment that it got against Agent Bowman.

[00:20:17] Speaker 04:
That judgment is substituting for the money that was stolen by Agent Bowman.

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
And the government procured that judgment based on the fact that it had possessed Mr. Kanan's money.

[00:20:26] Speaker 04:
If it did not possess Mr. Kanan's money, it would have had no basis for procuring that judgment.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
And so that's why we think, at the very least, Mr. Kanan should be able to recover up to that judgment amount

[00:20:36] Speaker 04:
that the government could, if it hasn't executed on, could execute on at any time.

[00:20:41] Speaker 04:
And what the government seems to be saying here is that it can use the money that it had of Mr. Cannon's to procure this judgment against Agent Bowman.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
Mr. Cannon is out of luck because we can't trace specific bills, but the government then gets to pocket this judgment that it got against Agent Bowman.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
And I would just respectfully submit that can't be right.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
What's the difference between a substitute race and damages?

[00:21:06] Speaker 04:
So I think a substitute race is when the property is changing forms.

[00:21:10] Speaker 04:
Damages is a situation where the property, what this court said in Ordonia is the property had been lost.

[00:21:18] Speaker 04:
So it didn't actually change forms.

[00:21:20] Speaker 04:
And substitute race is the situation like in $277,000.

[00:21:25] Speaker 04:
And I think the same situation with the judgment here, where $277,000 was money put into a bank account.

[00:21:33] Speaker 04:
So obviously at that point, the specific bills are gone.

[00:21:36] Speaker 04:
What the court said was that creates an obligation on the part of the bank to return the same sum of money to the government on demand.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
And that's why it's a substitute race.

[00:21:47] Speaker 04:
The judgment operates the same way.

[00:21:49] Speaker 04:
That's an obligation by Agent Bowman to return this sum of money to the government on demand.

[00:21:55] Speaker 04:
And if the government has not already fully collected the judgment, it certainly has the right to do so.

[00:22:00] Speaker 04:
And it procured that judgment only through the use of Mr. Cannon's money.

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
And what $277,000 is very clear is when the government actually gets a benefit from property that it has seized, that benefit belongs to the rightful owner of the property.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
Here that would be Mr. Cannon.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
So I think even under the government's view of sovereign immunity, he's at least entitled to recover up to the judgment amount.

[00:22:23] Speaker 04:
But our view is that these motions for return of seized currency as the first enforced circuits have held, what we're really doing here is enforcing an obligation that the government incurred at the time of seizure to return the same amount of money to the person it was seized from if it failed to seek forfeiture.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
And that's why the specific bills don't matter.

[00:22:43] Speaker 04:
And I think that, you know, we have Bowen, but we also have the DC Circuit's decision in America Community Bankers that I think is really illustrative.

[00:22:52] Speaker 04:
There, it was a bank that gave money to the FDIC, was charged by the FDIC, and alleged it was overcharged, and that it was entitled to a refund of some of that money.

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
What do you do to the government's argument that your client's remedy was to participate in the forfeiture?

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
proceedings for Bowman.

[00:23:12] Speaker 04:
So that's an argument that it's making for the first time today, and I think it's directly contrary to Marolf.

[00:23:18] Speaker 04:
So in Marolf, what happened was there was two co-defendants that supposedly had a right in this vote.

[00:23:24] Speaker 04:
The government sent a forfeiture notice to one of them, but not the other, and obtained forfeiture against one of the co-defendants.

[00:23:31] Speaker 04:
And the court here didn't say, well, you have to then go intervene in that co-defendants' forfeiture proceedings and try to litigate your rights there.

[00:23:38] Speaker 04:
No, the government had an obligation to provide the notice to the other owner of the boat.

[00:23:43] Speaker 04:
It didn't do that.

[00:23:44] Speaker 04:
The limitations period has expired.

[00:23:45] Speaker 04:
And so it's entitled to get the boat back.

[00:23:48] Speaker 04:
And so again, this is an argument that the government's making the first time today.

[00:23:52] Speaker 04:
But I don't think it has any merit.

[00:23:53] Speaker 04:
This is Mr. Cannon's money.

[00:23:55] Speaker 04:
He shouldn't have to jump through additional procedural hurdles solely because the government's agent stole the money after it was in the government's possession.

[00:24:03] Speaker 04:
His right is against the government itself.

[00:24:06] Speaker 04:
It arose out of the original seizure.

[00:24:08] Speaker 04:
And enforcing upon that right is a claim for specific relief, not a claim for damages.

[00:24:14] Speaker 04:
So I think there's a lot of ways the court could resolve this case.

[00:24:17] Speaker 04:
It could leave a lot of this to the district court.

[00:24:20] Speaker 04:
But I would urge the court to hold that he has a right to recover this entire sum of money.

[00:24:25] Speaker 04:
At the very least, he should be entitled to recover the amount of the judgment against Asia Bowman.

[00:24:30] Speaker 04:
And with that, if there's some more questions, I'll submit.

[00:24:33] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:24:33] Speaker 00:
The case of Cannon versus United States is submitted.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
And the case of Duffy versus JP Morgan Chase Bank is submitted on the brief.

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
And this court for this session stands adjourned.

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
All rise.

[00:24:58] Speaker 00:
This court for this session stands adjourned.