United States v. Certain Real Property Located on Hanson Brook
Docket: Civ. No. 91-0110-P-C
Court: District Court, D. Maine; May 13, 1992; Federal District Court
The order denies the United States' motion for summary judgment in a civil forfeiture case involving property allegedly connected to drug trafficking and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 981 and 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6). The claimants are Patrick S. Cunan and Prestige Precious Metals, Inc., which Cunan represents as president. The Government filed its motion on January 15, 1992, supported by discovery materials and affidavits from IRS and state agents. Claimants sought additional discovery, which the Court granted on March 4, 1992. For summary judgment to be granted, there must be no genuine issue of material fact, with the evidence viewed favorably towards the nonmoving party. The court reiterates that the government must demonstrate probable cause linking the property to illicit activities, a standard requiring reasonable belief of guilt, but less than prima facie proof. The government carries the burden initially, but it shifts to the claimant to demonstrate the property was not used unlawfully. The court finds sufficient evidence to establish probable cause regarding the connection between the properties and Richard DeCato's alleged activities. However, it concludes that the government has not fulfilled its burden of proving the absence of a material fact dispute necessary to warrant a summary judgment. The court emphasizes that reasonable jurors might find in favor of the claimants, preventing a ruling in favor of the government at this stage. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the purchase of the defendant properties and the origins of the funds used, as viewed in favor of Claimants. The resolution of these issues hinges on drawing inferences from evidence, which can lead to conflicting interpretations. The court emphasizes that it cannot impose its own probabilities on the record. The Government's claim of probable cause hinges on hearsay testimony from Michael Brady and Troy Bolduc, who alleged that Richard DeCato intended to purchase properties with drug money through Patrick Cunan. However, inconsistencies in their testimonies and their previous unreliability undermine the credibility of their statements, preventing the court from granting summary judgment. The court finds that a reasonable jury could still award the property to the Claimants. As a result, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The court also rejects arguments that DeCato's statements qualify as non-hearsay under the rules of evidence, finding insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy between DeCato and Cunan or to support the agency argument.