United States v. Chase

Citations: 250 F. Supp. 3d 1; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74029Docket: DOCKET NO. 5:15cr15

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina; April 19, 2017; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The United States District Court, presided over by Judge Richard L. Voorhees, has granted a Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture requested by the United States. This motion seeks the forfeiture of specific properties under 18 U.S.C. § 2253(a)(3) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) related to crimes involving child exploitation and advertising child pornography. The properties include an ASUS laptop, a Cruzer 128GB thumbdrive, and a real property located at 3570 15th Avenue, SW, Naples, Florida.

The background reveals that a Grand Jury indicted the Defendant on multiple counts, including engaging in a child exploitation enterprise and advertising child pornography, linked to the operation of a child pornography website called 'Playpen' on the dark web. The Government claims that Playpen facilitated the distribution of over 100,000 images among approximately 150,000 users. The indictment included a notice of forfeiture, indicating probable cause for the Naples Residence, where the Defendant lived and which was titled in his and his deceased spouse's names.

During the trial, evidence showed that the Defendant used the Naples Residence to manage the Playpen website, including logging into accounts related to its operation and accessing funds. Law enforcement discovered the ASUS Laptop connected to the Playpen server and found the Cruzer Thumbdrive inserted into it during a search of the residence. The Defendant has pleaded not guilty and opted for a jury trial, during which the Government presented evidence of the Defendant's use of the forfeited items to facilitate his crimes.

Law enforcement found incriminating evidence on the ASUS Laptop and Cruzer Thumbdrive, including browser history from the Playpen administrative forum and related passwords and instructions. The Jury convicted the Defendant on multiple counts, including advertising and transporting child pornography, and found him guilty of possession as well. The Jury ruled out a verdict for Count Two if guilty on Count One. Following this, a Special Verdict was issued for the forfeiture of the Naples Residence, ASUS Laptop, and Cruzer Thumbdrive, establishing a connection between these items and the offenses charged. 

The Government seeks a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture based on Title 18 U.S.C. 2253(a)(3) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1), which allow for forfeiture when a nexus is demonstrated between property and violations of child exploitation statutes. The Government asserts that sufficient evidence exists to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard for forfeiture, showing that the Defendant utilized the Naples Residence and associated items to commit the offenses. Citing relevant case law, the Government argues that the privacy of the residence was crucial to the commission of the crimes, thus justifying forfeiture. The Court concurs with this position.

ORDERED: 1. The United States is authorized to forfeit property belonging to the Defendant, including one ASUS laptop, one Cruzer 128GB thumbdrive, and real property located at 3570 15th Avenue, SW, Naples, Florida, subject to third-party claims pending final adjudication. The property is described in detail, including relevant legal references. 2. Under 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(1), the Government must publish notice of the order and intent to dispose of the forfeited property. Any third party claiming a legal interest must file a petition with the Court within thirty days of the final notice, detailing their interest and supporting facts, signed under penalty of perjury. The Government may also provide direct written notice to known interested parties as an alternative to published notice. 3. After resolving third-party interests, the Court will issue a Final Order of Forfeiture. The Government's request for forfeiture is based on Counts One, Two, and Three of the indictment, as these charges offered a straightforward basis for instructing the Jury on forfeiture, despite authorization for forfeiture based on other offenses.