In United States v. Smith, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-10160 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court considered whether two qui tam relators were entitled to intervene in a criminal forfeiture
action so that they could recover a share of the proceeds.
It held they could not, because a criminal forfeiture
action does not constitute an “alternate remedy” to a civil qui tam
action under the False Claims Act, entitling a relator to
intervene.
Further, because the relators had no interest in the
property when the criminal acts were committed, and they
were not qualifying bonafide purchasers for value, they did not have standing to intervene under the forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6).
