In United States v. Nasri, --- F.4th ---, No. 22-55685 (9th Cir. 2024), the Court majority held that the district court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction violated due process and vacated the district court’s order granting the government’s motion to strike Nasri’s claim of innocent ownership over the assets.
This case arises out of the Phantom Secure prosecutions. The government brought a civil forfeiture action under 28 USC 1355 to recover alleged ill-gotten gains in a foreign bank account from fugitive Younes Nasri.
Nasri, a Canadian citizen residing in Dubai, challenged the court’s jurisdiction over the assets because allegedly neither he nor the assets had ties to the United States.
The Court held that, as a matter of basic due process, a court must have control or constructive control over the property in a forfeiture action in order to establish in rem jurisdiction over the property.
We hold that due process requires a district court to establish control or constructive control over property in a forfeiture action to exercise in rem jurisdiction over the property.
The Court further concluded that the district court's purported exercise of in rem jurisdiction over property located abroad, over which it apparently had no connection, possession, or control, was contrary to fundamental principles of due process. The Court thus remanded for the district court to assess in the first instance whether the court has control or constructive control over the assets to satisfy due process when asserting in rem jurisdiction.
