Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Yeung Mung Weng v. United States
Citation: 29 F. App'x 731Docket: Docket No. 01-6137
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; February 25, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
The district court's judgment is affirmed regarding the forfeiture of plaintiff-appellant Yeung Mung Weng's property, which includes $65,900 in currency and approximately $19,000 in jewelry, deemed proceeds from illegal narcotics trafficking under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The FBI seized the property during Weng's arrest in November 1990 and initiated administrative forfeiture proceedings per 19 U.S.C. § 1607, providing notice to Weng's last known address and the detention facility, along with public notice in local newspapers. When no claims were made, the property was administratively forfeited under 19 U.S.C. § 1609. Weng filed a suit in 1995 for the return of his property, which the district court dismissed. On appeal, this Court vacated the dismissal in 1998 due to insufficient notice. Following a remand, the government could not prove Weng received actual notice of the forfeiture. A hearing was ordered, and Magistrate Judge John L. Caden subsequently determined Weng's property was subject to forfeiture, which was adopted by the district court in 2001 despite Weng's objections. Weng contended that the lack of actual notice should have resulted in the return of his property. However, the court clarified that when notice is deficient, the claimant may litigate the forfeiture's merits. The magistrate's findings established probable cause linking Weng to heroin trafficking, and since Weng provided no evidence to contest the government's claims, the forfeiture was deemed appropriate. The Supreme Court's decision in Dusenbery v. United States affirmed that reasonable notice efforts suffice, negating Weng's arguments. Thus, the judgment is upheld.