JW Nile Motion To Dismiss

Case 2:16-cv-05364-DSF-PLA Document 130 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:1352
1 Ekwan E. Rhow - State Bar No. 174604

erhow@birdmarella.com
2 Jeremy D. Matz - State Bar No. 199401
jmatz@birdmarella.com
3 Naeun Rim - State Bar No. 263558
nrim@birdmarella.com
4 Patricia H. Jun - State Bar No. 277461
pjun@birdmarella.com
5 BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.
6 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
7 Telephone: (310) 201-2100
Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
8
Attorneys for Claimant JW Nile (BVI)
9 Ltd.
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
12
13
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 16-CV-5364-DSF (PLAx)
14
Plaintiff, CLAIMANT JW NILE (BVI) LTDS
15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
vs. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK
16 OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE;
ANY RIGHTS TO PROFITS, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
17 ROYALTIES AND DISTRIBUTION AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
PROCEEDS OWNED BY OR OWED
18 TO JW NILE (BVI) LTD., JCL Date: August 21, 2017
MEDIA (EMI PUBLISHING LTD), Time: 1:30 P.M.
19 AND/OR JYNWEL CAPITAL LTD, Crtrm.: 7D
RELATING TO EMI MUSIC
20 PUBLISHING GROUP NORTH Assigned to Hon. Dale S. Fischer
AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., AND
21 D.H. PUBLISHING L.P.,
22 Defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 21, 2017, before the Honorable
4 Dale S. Fischer, in Courtroom 7D, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in
5 the above-entitled Court located at the First Street Courthouse, 350 West 1st St., Los
6 Angeles, CA 90012, Claimant JW Nile (BVI) Ltd. (Claimant) will and hereby does
7 respectfully move this Court for an order dismissing this action against Defendant
8 Any Rights to Profits, Royalties And Distribution Proceeds Owned By or Owed to
9 JW Nile (BVI) Ltd.
10 Claimant moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of in rem jurisdiction and
11 improper venue under 28 U.S.C. 1355(b)(1), pursuant to Rule G(8)(b)(i) of the
12 Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions
13 (Supplemental Rules or Supp. R.), and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)
14 and 12(b)(3). This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, Motion to Dismiss and
15 the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, and such other papers
16 and arguments as the Court may entertain.
17 This motion is made following the L.R. 7-3 counsel conference, which took
18 place telephonically on April 5, 2017, and over email on May 8, 2017.
19
20 DATED: May 15, 2017 Ekwan E. Rhow
Jeremy D. Matz
21
Naeun Rim
22 Patricia H. Jun
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
23
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
24
By: /s/ Naeun Rim
25
Naeun Rim
26 Attorneys for Claimant JW Nile (BVI) Ltd.
27
28
1
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
3
II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 3
4
A. Procedural History .................................................................................. 3
5
B. Allegations In The Complaint ................................................................. 3
6
1. The Good Star Phase .................................................................... 4
7
2. The Tanore Phase ......................................................................... 6
8
3. The Purchase of the Out-of-State Assets ...................................... 8
9
4. The Claims for Forfeiture ........................................................... 12
10
III. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 13
11
IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 14
12
A. Jurisdiction and Venue Do Not Exist under 1355(b)(1)(B)
13 Because the Out-of-State Assets Are Not Located in This District...... 15
14 B. Jurisdiction and Venue Do Not Exist under 1355(b)(1)(A)
Because No Acts or Omissions Giving Rise to Forfeiture of
15 Out-of-State Assets Occurred in This District ...................................... 15
16 1. None Of the Alleged SUAs Occurred in This District ............... 17
17 2. None Of the Alleged Subsequent Money Laundering
Transactions Occurred in this District ........................................ 19
18
C. A Conspiracy Label Does Not Establish The Requisite Nexus
19 Between the Out-of-State Assets And This District ............................. 20
20 D. The Exercise of Jurisdiction Over the Out-of-State Assets Would
Violate Due Process .............................................................................. 22
21
V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 25
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3
Cases
4
All for Multilingual Multicultural Educ. v. Garcia,
5 No. CV 11-0215 PJH, 2011 WL 2532478 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2011) ................. 16
6
Allstar Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Your Store Online, LLC,
7 666 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................ 13
8 Contents of Account No. 03001288 v. United States,
9 344 F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 13
10 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,
466 U.S. 408 (1984) ............................................................................................. 24
11
12 Intl Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. &
Placement,
13 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ............................................................................................. 23
14
Intl Shoe Co. Co. v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.,
15 585 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 20
16 Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer,
17 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 20
18 Menken v. Emm,
19 503 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 14
20 Newhard Cook & Co. v. Inspired Life Ctrs., Inc.,

895 F.2d 1226 (8th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................. 24
21
22 Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co.,
598 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1979) ................................................................................ 14
23
Shaffer v. Heitner,
24 433 U.S. 186 (1977) ....................................................................................... 23, 24
25
United States v. $198,573.85 in U.S. Currency,
26 No. 5:13-CV-1180, 2014 WL 859137 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2014) ........................ 14
27 United States v. $50,040 in U.S. Currency,
28 No. 06-04552 WHA, 2007 WL 1176631 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2007)................... 22
ii
1 United States v. $50,900,

No. CV 15-14125, 2016 WL 4257328 (D. Mass. Aug. 11, 2016) ................. 15, 20
2
3 United States v. 3 Parcels in La Plata County, Colo.,
919 F. Supp. 1449 (D. Nev. 1995) ................................................................. 14, 17
4
United States v. 51 Pieces of Real Prop. Roswell, N.M.,
5
17 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 21
6
United States v. Account of Prop. Futures, Inc.,
7 No. CV 08-81244, 2010 WL 11447277 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2010) ...................... 15
8
United States v. Approximately $1.67 Million,
9 513 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 13, 15, 16
10 United States v. Batato,
11 833 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 23, 24
12 United States v. Eleven (11) New Util. Vehicles,
13 2014 WL 4385734 (D.P.R. Sept. 4, 2014) ........................................................... 13
14 United States v. Funds Held in the Name or for the Benefit of Wetterer,
210 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2000) ............................................................................... 2, 21
15
16 United States v. Funds Representing Proceeds of Drug Trafficking of
$75,868.62,
17 52 F. Supp.2d 1160 (C.D. Cal. 1999) ............................................................. 15, 17
18 United States v. Jinian,
19 725 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 19
20 United States v. Kennedy,
21 201 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 16
22 United States v. One 2006 Lamborghini Murcielago,

No. SACV 13-0907-DOC, 2015 WL 3752338 (C.D. Cal. June 16,
23 2015) ..................................................................................................................... 16
24
United States v. Prevezon Holdings, LTD.,
25 122 F. Supp. 3d 57 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .................................................................... 18
26 United States v. Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) in U.S. Currency,
27 860 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 23
28
iii
1 Statutes
2 U.S. CONST. V. ..................................................................................................... 14, 23
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ............................................................................................... 2, 3, 13
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Rule G ................................................................................. 2, 13
5
18 U.S.C. 1343........................................................................................................ 12
6
7 18 U.S.C. 1956................................................................................................... 12-13
8 18 U.S.C. 1957........................................................................................................ 12
9 18 U.S.C. 2314........................................................................................................ 12
10
18 U.S.C. 2315........................................................................................................ 12
11
28 U.S.C 1355.................................................................................................. passim
12
28 U.S.C. 1391........................................................................................................ 20
13
14 28 U.S.C. 1395.................................................................................................. 14, 15
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iv
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff United States of America (Government) has brought before this
4 Court civil forfeiture actions against five defendant assets that have zero connection
5 to the Central District of California. These five assets (collectively the Out-of-State
6 Assets) and their respective Claimants are:1
7 Asset and Case Number Claimant(s)
8 EMI Rights JW Nile (BVI) Ltd.

16-CV-5364
9 Bombardier Jet Global One Aviation (Global 5000) Ltd.
10 16-CV-5367
Symphony Park Lane Assets 36 CPS Condos (NYC) LLC; 36 CPS Luxury
11 16-CV-5370 Hotel (NYC) Limited; 36 CPS Parking (NYC)
Limited; 36 CPS Residential Sales (NYC) Limited
12 Time Warner Penthouse and Storage 80 Columbus Circle (NYC) LLC
16-CV-5374
13 Greene Condominium 118 Greene Street (NYC) LLC
14 16-CV-5375
15 Clearly delineating and distinguishing the Out-of-State Assets is critical
16 here because the Governments strategy is transparent but legally improper. In an

17 attempt to circumvent clear statutory limitations on in rem jurisdiction and venue,
18 the Government has combined in a single omnibus Complaint the allegations against
19 these Out-of-State Assets with allegations against eleven entirely separate assets
20 (purchased by different parties through a distinct chain of transactions) some of
21 which happen to have some connection to this District. But the mere fact that the
22 Out-of-State Assets are described in the same Complaint as assets connected to this
23 District is not enough. There must be an independent basis for jurisdiction and
24 venue as to each named asset, namely that the conduct occurring in this District
25
1
Each of the motions to dismiss with regard to the Out-of-State Assets is based
26 upon an identical memorandum of points and authorities. Claimants have also
27 described each Out-of-State Asset using shorthand. The full description of each
Out-of-State Asset is contained in 2 and Attachment A of the Governments
28 Complaint in each respective case.
1
1 must be directly and closely causally connected to the forfeiture of the specific
2 Defendant Asset in this case. See United States v. Funds Held in the Name or for
3 the Benefit of Wetterer, 210 F.3d 96, 104-05 (2d Cir. 2000) (rejecting Governments
4 argument that independent assets form a single ball of wax for purposes of
5 forfeiture, and instead evaluating separately each asset for jurisdiction and venue);
6 28 U.S.C. 1355(b)(1)(A) (providing for jurisdiction and venue only in a district in
7 which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred (emphasis
8 added)). The five Out-of-State Assets have no connection to this District they are
9 neither located in this District nor traceable to any transaction that occurred in this
10 District. They are therefore not properly before this Court.
11 Claimants ask this Court to dismiss these actions for lack of in rem
12 jurisdiction and improper venue. Because none of the Out-of-State Assets is located
13 in this District, jurisdiction and venue may only be founded upon 28 U.S.C.
14 1355(b)(1)(A). But 1355(b)(1)(A) requires that some act or omission giving
15 rise to the forfeiture occurred in this District, and the Governments sprawling
16 Complaint lacks any allegation that fulfills this critical nexus requirement. In fact,
17 only about 20 of the Complaints 136 pages concern the five Out-of-State Assets,2
18 and none of those allegations assert that any act or omission occurred in this
19 District.
20 Remarkably, the Government does not claim that any of the Complaints
21 California-related allegations has any direct causal relationship with the forfeiture of
22 the Out-of-State Assets. Instead, the Government claims that it can avoid the statutory
23 limitations on the Courts jurisdiction by affixing a vague conspiracy label to all of
24 the allegations in the Complaint. As set forth below, the statutory text cannot be
25 manipulated to support the Governments argument. The Government cannot cure
26
2
27 See, e.g., CV 16-5364, Dkt. 1, Compl. at pp. 100-107 (EMI Rights), pp. 93-95
(Bombardier Jet), pp. 90-93 (Symphony CP (Park Lane) Assets), pp. 95-98 (Time
28 Warner Penthouse and Storage), and pp. 99-100 (Greene Condominium).
2
1 the glaring jurisdictional defects in these cases by lumping together, in a single

2 bloated Complaint, allegations against assets that do not have any connection to this
3 District with allegations against assets that do.
4 Finally, even if the Governments statutory argument had merit (it does not),
5 the exercise of jurisdiction over a property that is not located in this District, has no
6 connection to this District, and which is owned by a company that has no connection
7 to this District would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
8 Accordingly, in the alternative, the Court should grant the motion to dismiss pursuant
9 to the Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause.
10 II. BACKGROUND
11 A. Procedural History
12 The Government filed its Complaint for civil forfeiture in this Court on July
13 20, 2016. (See, e.g., CV 16-5364, Dkt 1.) On February 13, 2017, Claimants to the
14 Out-of-State Assets moved for leave to file late claims (see, e.g., id., Dkt. 100), partly
15 on the basis that they had a meritorious defense that the Complaint failed to plead a
16 proper basis for in rem jurisdiction or venue. The Court granted the motion, noting
17 that Claimants jurisdictional defenses are at least plausible. (See, e.g., id. Dkt. 122,
18 Ct. Order, Mar. 21, 2017.) On March 24, 2017, Claimants filed Verified Claims to
19 the Out-of-State Assets. (See, e.g., id., Dkt. 126.) The Court granted the parties
20 stipulation to extend Claimants deadline to file a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.
21 Civ. P. 12(b) to May 15, 2017. (See, e.g., id., Dkt. 128.)
22 B. Allegations In The Complaint3
23 The Government seeks forfeiture of the Out-of-State Assets on the basis that
24 they are involved in and traceable to an international conspiracy to launder money
25 misappropriated from 1MDB, a strategic investment and development company
26
27 3
For the purpose of this motion, Claimant must accept the Governments
28 allegations as true.
3
Case 2:16-cv-05364-DSF-PLA Document 130 Filed 05/15/17 Page 10 of 31 Page ID
#:1361
1 wholly owned by the Malaysian Government. (Compl. 5.)4 The Complaint alleges
2 that between 2009 and 2013, millions of dollars were siphoned from 1MDB, in three
3 phases: the Good Star Phase, the Aabar-BVI Phase, and the Tanore Phase. (Compl.
4 612.) Four of the five Out-of-State Assets that are the subject of this motion are
5 alleged to be traceable to the Good Star Phase, and the fifth is alleged to be traceable
6 to the Tanore Phase.
7 1. The Good Star Phase
8 During the Good Star Phase, millions of dollars were allegedly diverted from
9 1MDB to a Seychelles company called Good Star Limited (Good Star). The
10 Complaint describes the following transactions:
11 GOOD STAR PHASE TRANSACTIONS
12 DATE AMT FROM TO COMPL.
09/30/09 $700 million 1MDB (Deutsche Bank/Bank Good Star (RBS Coutts) 60, 65
13
Negara) SWITZERLAND
14 MALAYSIA
05/20/11 $330 million 1MDB (AmBank/Deutsche Good Star (RBS Coutts) 93-94
15 - Bank) SWITZERLAND
10/25/11 MALAYSIA
16
The Complaint alleges that 1MDB formed a joint venture with a Saudi oil
17
extraction company call PetroSaudi International (PetroSaudi), and that 1MDB
18
initiated multiple funds transfers to the joint venture in relation to energy
19
investments in Turkmenistan and Argentina. (Compl. 8, 40, 41, 52.) The
20
Complaint alleges that the funds for this investment were improperly diverted to a
21
bank account in Switzerland, held in the name of Good Star Limited (the Good Star
22
Account). (Compl. 60.) The Government claims that 1MDB officials in
23
Malaysia made multiple misrepresentations, including to banks in Malaysia, in order
24
to effectuate the misappropriation. (Compl. 8, 93-94, 95.) The Complaint also
25
26
4
27 All citations to Compl. will refer to the Complaint filed as Dkt. 1 in CV 16-
5364 (EMI Rights). The Complaints filed in the other cases are substantially
28 identical, except for the paragraphs describing the named Out-of-State Asset.
4
#:1362
1 alleges that between February and June of 2011, approximately $45 million was
2 transferred from the Good Star Account to the bank account of MALAYSIAN
3 OFFICIAL 1 (either directly or through the bank account of a Saudi Arabian
4 Prince). (Compl. 99-101.)
5 None of the events set forth above are alleged to have occurred in this
6 District, nor are any of the relevant people or entities alleged to be located in this
7 District. To the contrary, all of the allegations relating to the Good Star Phase
8 happened outside of the United States. The following chart summarizes the location
9 of the events, people, and entities involved in the Good Star Phase, as pled in the
10 Complaint.
11 GOOD STAR PHASE LOCATIONS
12 EVENT/PERSON/ENTITY LOCATION COMPL.
Good Star SEYCHELLES 44, n.6
13
Low Taek Jho MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE 24, 46
14
Good Star bank account (RBS Coutts Bank) Opened in SINGAPORE; 24, 46
15 Funds transferred to
SWITZERLAND
16 1MDB MALAYSIA 5
17 PetroSaudi SAUDI ARABIA 8
18 Joint Venture bank account (JP Morgan Bank) SWITZERLAND 61
19 1MDB Board Meetings MALAYSIA 47-51,
82-90
20 Bank Negara (Malaysias Central Bank) MALAYSIA 65
21 1MDB Officials Misrepresentations to Bank MALAYSIA 65, 95
Negara
22 Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Marhad MALAYSIA 43, 51
23 1MDB Officials Misrepresentations to Deutsche MALAYSIA 60, 66
Bank
24 AmBank MALAYSIA 94
25 1MDB Officials Misrepresentations to AmBank MALAYSIA 94
26 MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 MALAYSIA 28
27 MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 bank account MALAYSIA 94,
(AmBank) 101-02
28
5
#:1363

Saudi Arabian Prince SAUDI ARABIA 99
2
Saudi Arabian Prince bank account (Riyad Bank) SAUDI ARABIA 100
3
4 Four of the five Out-of-State Assets that are the subject of this motion were
5 allegedly acquired using funds traceable to the Good Star Phase: EMI Rights (CV 16-
6 5364), the Bombardier Jet (CV 16-5367), the Time Warner Penthouse and Storage
7 (CV 16-5374), and the Greene Condominium (CV 16-5375). All of these Assets are
8 located outside of California. The transfers leading to the acquisition of these Out-
9 of-State Assets are described in further detail in Section II(B)(3) below.
10 2. The Tanore Phase
11 During the Tanore Phase, 1MDB Global Investments Limited (a subsidiary
12 of 1MDB) allegedly sent more than $1.26 billion, through a series of transactions, to
13 two entities, Tanore Finance Corporate (Tanore) and Granton Property Holdings
14 (Granton). (Compl. 243.) According to the Government, 1MDB Officials and
15 MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 represented to the public that the above funds were being
16 sent to support a joint venture between 1MDB and Aabar Investments PJS (Aabar).
17 (Compl. 231-32, 240.) To raise money for 1MDBs contribution to the joint
18 venture, 1MDB Global allegedly issued approximately $3 million in bonds through a
19 private placement offering with the Singapore office of Goldman Sachs. (Compl.
20 237.) The Complaint claims the proceeds from the bond sale were supposed to be
21 sent to an account belonging to the joint venture. (Compl. 232, 244.) Instead,
22 more than $1.26 million of the funds were allegedly diverted to the Tanore and
23 Granton bank accounts in Singapore. (Compl. 243.) The Tanore and Granton bank
24 accounts were allegedly owned by Eric Tan, an associate of Jho Low, and had nothing
25 to do with Aabar or the joint venture. (Compl. 10.)
26 The following chart reflects how the proceeds from the 1MDB Global bond
27 sale ended up in the Tanore and Granton bank accounts, as pled in the Complaint.
28 / / /
6
#:1364
1 TANORE PHASE TRANSACTIONS

03/19/13 $2.7 billion Goldman Bond Proceeds (Bank 1MDB Global (BSI Bank) 244
3 of NY Mellon) SINGAPORE
UNKNOWN
4 03/21/13 $1.59 billion 1MDB Global (BSI Bank) Overseas Investment Funds 245-46
SINGAPORE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS,
5 03/27/13 CURACAO
03/21/13 $835 million* Overseas Investment Funds Tanore Account (Falcon Bank) 11, 247
6 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS, SINGAPORE
03/22/13 CURACAO
7 03/21/13 $430 million Overseas Investment Fund Granton Account (Falcon Bank) 245, 251
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS SINGAPORE
8
03/21/13 $430 million* Granton Account (Falcon Bank) Tanore Account (Falcon Bank) 252
9 SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
10 03/25/13 $378 million Tanore Account (Falcon Bank) Granton Account (Falcon Bank) 253
SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
11
* The sum of $835 million and $430 million make up the $1.26 billion alleged in the Complaint.
12
The Complaint also alleges that in March of 2013, approximately $681 million was
13
transferred from the Tanore account to the bank account of MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL
14
1. (Compl. 260.) MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 is claimed to have later returned $620
15
million to the Tanore account in August of 2013. (Compl. 262.)
16
As was the case with the Good Star Phase, none of the events described in the
17
Tanore Phase is alleged to have occurred in this District, nor are any of the relevant
18
people or entities alleged to be located in this District. The following chart
19
summarizes the locations of the events, people, and entities involved in the Tanore
20
Phase, as pled in the Complaint.
21
TANORE PHASE LOCATIONS
22
EVENT/PERSON/ENTITY LOCATION COMPL.
23 1MDB Global BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS 237
24 1MDB Global bank account (BSI Bank) SINGAPORE 244
25 Tanore bank account (Falcon Bank) SINGAPORE 241
26 Granton bank account (Falcon Bank) SINGAPORE 241
27 Eric Tan MALAYSIA 30

Goldman Sachs Singapore Office SINGAPORE 123, 237
28
7
#:1365

Goldman Bond Sale bank account (Bank of UNKNOWN 244
2
New York Mellon)
3 Aabar Investments PJS (Aabar) ABU DHABI 10
4 Overseas Investment Funds BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS 245-46

CURACAO
5 MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 MALAYSIA 28
6 MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 bank accounts MALAYSIA 94, 101-

(AmBank) 02, 260-62
7 1MDB issues press release stating proceeds of MALAYSIA 240
the bond sale will go to the joint venture
8 Malaysian Government writes Letter of MALAYSIA 238
9 Support for the bond sale
10 Of the five Out-of-State Assets that are the subject of this motion, the
11 Symphony Park Lane Assets (CV 16-5370) were allegedly acquired using funds
12 traceable to the Tanore Phase. The transfers leading to the acquisition of the Out-of-
13 State Assets are described in further detail in the next section.
14 3. The Purchase of the Out-of-State Assets
15 Starting from page 82, the Complaint traces the money from the Good Star and
16 Tanore Phases to the purchase of the Out-of-State Assets. The following charts
17 summarize the locations of the transactions leading up to the purchase of each asset.
18 None of the transactions is alleged to have occurred in this District, nor are any of the
19 Out-of-State Assets below alleged to be located in this District. On occasion, the
20 Complaint fails to allege the location of some of the bank accounts. For example, the
21 Complaint alleges that certain funds flowed through the Shearman IOLA Account, an
22 account held by Shearman & Sterling LLP,5 but does not specify where the account
23 was located. For these accounts, the charts below list the location as UNKNOWN.
24 EMI Assets (CV 16-5364) [Traced to GOODSTAR]
25 Claimant for EMI Assets is JW Nile (BVI) Ltd., an entity located in the
26
5
27 The website for Shearman & Sterling LLP indicates it is a law firm with no
office in this District. See http://www.shearman.com/en/offices (accessed May 13,
28 2017).
8
#:1366
1 British Virgin Islands. The Complaint alleges Low acquired an interest in the EMI
2 Rights using money from the Good Star Phase, as reflected in the following chart.
06/08/12 $120 million Good Star (RBS Coutts) ADKMIC BSI (BSI Bank) 378-79
4 SWITZERLAND SINGAPORE
5 06/11/12 $120 millions ADKMIC BSI (BSI Bank) Low Hock Peng (BSI Bank) 379
SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
6
06/11/12 $118 million Low Hock Peng (BSI Bank) Low Taek Jho (BSI Bank) 379
8 06/11/12 $115 million Low Taek Jho (BSI Bank) Jynnwel Account A (BSI Bank) 379
SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
9
06/11/12 $115 million Jynnwel Account A (BSI Bank) Jynnwel Account B (BSI Bank) 379
11 06/11/12 $110 million Jynnwel Account B (BSI Bank) JW Nile Account aka LOW EMI 379, 384
SINGAPORE Partner (CLAIMANT) (BSI Bank)
12 SINGAPORE
06/26/12 $107 million JW Nile Account aka LOW EMI EMI Escrow Account (Bank of NY 380,
13 Partner (CLAIMANT) (BSI Mellon) 382
Bank) UNITED STATES
14 SINGAPORE (UNKNOWN)
15 Bombardier Jet (CV 16-5367) [Traced to GOODSTAR]
16 Claimant for Bombardier Jet is Global One Aviation (Global 5000) Ltd., an
17 entity located in the British Virgin Islands. The Complaint alleges Low acquired an
18 interest in the jet using money from the Good Star Phase, as reflected in the
19 following chart.
DATE AMT FROM TO COMPL.
20
10/21/09 $148 million Good Star (RBS Coutts) Shearman IOLA Account 338,
21 SWITZERLAND UNKNOWN 105
22 12/31/09 $7 million Shearman IOLA Account Crowe Escrow Account (Bank of 339
UNKNOWN Oklahoma)
23 OKLAHOMA
24 01/26/10 $117 million Good Star (RBS Coutts) Shearman IOLA Account 338
SWITZERLAND UNKNOWN
25 03/26/10 $28 million Shearman IOLA Account Crowe Aircraft Escrow Account 341
UNKNOWN (Bank of Oklahoma)
26 OKLAHOMA
27 03/31/10 $35 million Crowe Aircraft Escrow Account J.T. Aviation Corp. (Citibank) 333,
(Bank of Oklahoma) UNKNOWN 342
28 OKLAHOMA
9
#:1367
1 Symphony Park Lane Assets (CV 16-5370) [Traced to TANORE]

2 Claimants for Symphony Park Lane Assets are 36 CPS Condos (NYC) LLC,
3 36 CPS Luxury Hotel (NYC) Limited, 36 CPS Parking (NYC) Limited, and 36 CPS
4 Residential Sales (NYC) Limited, entities located in Delaware and the British Virgin
5 Islands. The Complaint alleges Low acquired an interest in the Symphony Park
6 Lane Assets using money from the Tanore Phase, as reflected in the following chart.
03/25/13 $378 million Tanore Account (Falcon Bank) Granton Account (Falcon Bank) 404
9 03/25/13 $378 million Granton Account (Falcon Bank) Dragon Market (RBS Coutts) 405
SINGAPORE SWITZERLAND
10
11/05/13 $93 million Granton Account (Falcon Bank) Dragon Market (RBS Coutts) 405
11 SINGAPORE SWITZERLAND
12 11/06/13 $47 million Granton Account (Falcon Bank) Dragon Market (RBS Coutts) 405
SINGAPORE SWITZERLAND
13
04/25/13 $98 million Dragon Market (RBS Coutts) Dragon Dynasty (BSI Bank) 406
15 07/05/13 $120 million Dragon Market (RBS Coutts) Dragon Dynasty (BSI Bank) 406
SWITZERLAND SINGAPORE
16 09/10/13 $9.8 million Dragon Market (RBS Coutts) Dragon Dynasty (BSI Bank) 406
SWITZERLAND SINGAPORE
17
11/08/13 $248.5 Dragon Market (RBS Coutts) Dragon Dynasty (BSI Bank) 406
18 million SWITZERLAND SINGAPORE
19 11/12/13 $248.5 Dragon Dynasty (BSI Bank) Low Hock Peng (BSI Bank) 408
million SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
20
11/12/13 $235.5 Low Hock Peng (BSI Bank) Low Taek Jho (BSI Bank) 408
21 million SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
22 11/12/13 $12.5 million Low Hock Peng (BSI Bank) Low Taek Szen (BSI Bank) 409
SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
23
11/12/13 $206 million Low Taek Jho (BSI Bank) DLA Piper IOLA (Citibank) 410
24 SINGAPORE NEW YORK
25 11/12/13 $12.2 million Low Taek Szen (BSI Bank) DLA Piper IOLA (Citibank) 411
SINGAPORE NEW YORK
26
11/23/13 $202 million DLA Piper IOLA (Citibank) Commonwealth Title Ins. (JP 422
27 NEW YORK Morgan)
UNKNOWN
28
10
#:1368
1 Time Warner Penthouse and Storage (CV 16-5374) [Traced to GOODSTAR]

2 Claimant for the Time Warner Penthouse and Storage Unit is 80 Columbus
3 Circle (NYC) LLC, an entity located in Delaware. The Complaint alleges Low
4 acquired an interest in the Time Warner assets using money from the Good Star
5 Phase, as reflected in the following chart.
06/28/11 $55 million Good Star (RBS Coutts) ADKMIC BSI (BSI Bank) 109,
7 SWITZERLAND SINGAPORE 346
8 06/28/11 $54.8 million ADKMIC BSI (BSI Bank) Low Hock Peng (BSI Bank) 346
SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
9
06/28/11 $30 million Low Hock Peng (BSI Bank) Selune Ltd. (Rothschild Bank AG) 346
10 SINGAPORE SWITZERLAND
11 Unknown $27 million Selune Ltd. (Rothschild Bank 1/80 Columbus (Rothschild Bank 347
AG) AG)
12 SWITZERLAND SWITZERLAND
07/05/11 $27 million 1/80 Columbus (Rothschild Bank Shearman IOLA Account 347
13 AG) UNKNOWN
SWITZERLAND
14 07/05/11 $27 million Shearman IOLA Account Checks written to: 348
UNKNOWN Prudential Douglass Elliman
15 NY State Sales Tax
Former owner of asset (JP Morgan
16 Chase)
Chicago Title Insurance Company
17 UNKNOWN
18 CV 16-5375 - Greene Condominium [TRACED TO GOODSTAR]

19 Claimant for the Greene Condominium is 118 Greene Street (NYC) LLC, an
20 entity located in New York. The Complaint alleges Low acquired an interest in the
21 Greene Condominium using money from the Good Star Phase, as reflected in the
22 following chart.
11/02/12 $153 million Good Star RBS Coutts ADKMIC BSI (BSI Bank) 360
25 11/05/12 $153 million ADKMIC BSI (BSI Bank) Low Hock Peng (BSI Bank) 360
SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
26
11/07/12 $150 million Low Hock Peng (BSI Bank) Low Taek Jho (BSI Bank) 360
28
11
#:1369

02/05/14 $13.8 million Low Taek Jho (BSI Bank) DLA Piper (Citibank) 361
2 SINGAPORE UNKNOWN
3 02/12/14 $13.7 millions DLA Piper (Citibank) Chicago Title Insurance Company 361
UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
4
5 4. The Claims for Forfeiture
6 Based on the above allegations, the Government seeks forfeiture against the
7 Out-of-State Assets under four claims for relief:
8 First Claim (Assets traceable to SUAs Compl. 502-04)
9 The Complaint alleges the Out-of-State Assets are forfeitable because they
10 constitute and are derived from proceeds traceable to the following specified
11 unlawful activities (SUAs) as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1956(c)(7) or a
12 conspiracy to commit such SUAs:
13 (1) a foreign offense involving the misappropriation of public funds by or for
14 the benefit of a public official (18 U.S.C. 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv))
15 (2) fraud by or against a foreign bank (18 U.S.C. 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii))
16 (3) wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343)
17 (4) international transportation/receipt of stolen property (18 U.S.C. 2314)
18 and receipt of stolen money (18 U.S.C. 2315).
19 Second Claim (Assets traceable to 1957 transaction Compl. 505-07)
21 were involved in or are traceable to a violation of (or a conspiracy to violate)
22 18 U.S.C. 1957, which prohibits knowingly conducting a financial
23 transaction with proceeds of the above SUAs in an amount greater than
24 $10,000.
25 Third Claim (Assets traceable to 1956 transaction Compl. 508-10)
28 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), which prohibits conducting a transaction with
12
#:1370
1 proceeds of the above SUAs with the intent to conceal the criminal nature of
2 the proceeds.
3 Fourth Claim (Assets traceable to 1956 transaction Compl. 511-13)
6 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(2)(B), which prohibits transporting proceeds of the
7 above SUAs from overseas into the United States with the intent to conceal
8 the criminal nature of the proceeds.
9 For the Out-of-State Assets that are the subject of this motion, none of the SUAs
10 or the subsequent acts of laundering the proceeds are alleged to have occurred in this
11 District.
12 III. LEGAL STANDARD
13 This in rem civil forfeiture action is governed by the Supplemental Rules. See
14 Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. (Supp. R.) A(1)(B). A civil forfeiture complaint must state
15 the grounds for in rem jurisdiction and for venue, Supp. R. G(2)(b), and state
16 sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be
17 able to meet its burden of proof at trial, Supp. R. G(2)(f). The Supplemental Rules
18 thus impose a particularity requirement on civil in rem complaints, in addition to the
19 requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. United States v. Eleven (11)
20 New Util. Vehicles, 2014 WL 4385734, at *1 (D.P.R. Sept. 4, 2014).
21 Supplemental Rule G(8)(b)(i) allows a claimant to move to dismiss a civil
22 forfeiture complaint under Rule 12(b). Here, Claimant moves to dismiss under Rule
23 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) because the Complaint fails to set forth a viable basis for in rem
24 jurisdiction or venue in this District over the Out-of-State Assets. In an in rem
25 forfeiture action, 28 U.S.C 1355 establishes the statutory requirements for both
26 jurisdiction and venue. See United States v. Approximately $1.67 Million, 513 F.3d
27 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2008) (section 1355 provides for jurisdiction in forfeiture cases).
28 Contents of Account No. 03001288 v. United States, 344 F.3d 399, 403 (3d Cir. 2003)
13
#:1371
1 (Though the District Court concluded that 1355(b) merely provides for venue, we
2 find that it also grants district courts jurisdiction over the property at issue in forfeiture
3 actions based on the plain language of the statute.). The Government, as plaintiff,
4 bears the burden of establishing proper venue and jurisdiction. See, e.g., Menken v.
5 Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007); Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden
6 Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). In deciding a motion to dismiss for
7 lack of jurisdiction or improper venue, the Court must accept the Complaints well-
8 pled factual allegations as true. See Allstar Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Your Store Online,
9 LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1129 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (collecting cases); United States
10 v. $198,573.85 in U.S. Currency, No. 5:13-CV-1180, 2014 WL 859137, at *2
11 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2014). The Government bears the burden of alleging sufficient
12 jurisdictional facts to make a prima facie showing that must be more than bare
13 allegations of jurisdiction; plaintiff must establish the existence of the requisite
14 jurisdictional facts. See United States v. 3 Parcels in La Plata County, Colo., 919 F.
15 Supp. 1449, 1452 (D. Nev. 1995).
16 IV. ARGUMENT
17 The actions against the Out-of-State Assets should be dismissed for lack of
18 jurisdiction and improper venue. Under 1355, jurisdiction and venue in a civil asset
19 forfeiture action are proper (i) in any district where the property to be forfeited is
20 located (28 U.S.C. 1355(b)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. 1395(b)); or (ii) in the district court
21 for the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture
22 occurred (28 U.S.C. 1355(b)(1)(A)). The Government cannot establish statutory
23 jurisdiction or venue over the Out-of-State Assets under either theory. Even if the
24 Government could satisfy the statute, exercising jurisdiction over the Out-of-State
25 Assets in this District would not comport with the Due Process clause of the Fifth
26 Amendment.
27
28
14
#:1372
1 A. Jurisdiction and Venue Do Not Exist under 1355(b)(1)(B) Because the

2 Out-of-State Assets Are Not Located in This District
3 A civil asset forfeiture proceeding can be prosecuted in any district where the
4 property subject to forfeiture is found or into which the property is brought. 28
5 U.S.C. 1395; see also 28 U.S.C. 1355. It is undisputed that the Out-of-State Assets
6 are not located in California. Accordingly, the Government cannot establish
7 jurisdiction or venue under 1355(b)(1)(B).
8 B. Jurisdiction and Venue Do Not Exist under 1355(b)(1)(A) Because No
9 Acts or Omissions Giving Rise to Forfeiture of Out-of-State Assets
10 Occurred in This District
11 District courts asserting jurisdiction on the basis of 1355(b) are instructed
12 to make clear findings of acts or omissions occurring in the district upon which the
13 court bases its jurisdiction. Approximately $1.67 Million, 513 F.3d at 998 n.4. The
14 Supplemental Rules further require that the Government describe with reasonable
15 particularity . . . the circumstances from which the claim arises, such that the
16 claimant is able to investigate and challenge the forfeiture without requiring additional
17 information about the property or the alleged wrongdoing. United States v. Funds
18 Representing Proceeds of Drug Trafficking of $75,868.62, 52 F. Supp.2d 1160, 1163
19 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (citations and quotes omitted) (emphasis added). Under the plain
20 language of 1355(b)(1)(A), jurisdiction and venue lie only if there is a direct causal
21 nexus between the conduct that is, an act or omission giving rise to the civil
22 forfeiture and the district in which the case is brought. See, e.g., United States v.
23 $50,900, No. CV 15-14125, 2016 WL 4257328, at *2 (D. Mass. Aug. 11, 2016) (At
24 a minimum, the government must plausibly allege some connection between the
25 forum district and the res that is the subject of the forfeiture action.); United States
26 v. Account of Prop. Futures, Inc., No. CV 08-81244, 2010 WL 11447277, at *5 (S.D.
27 Fla. Feb. 18, 2010) (finding court had jurisdiction [e]ven though the property at issue
28 is in Pennsylvania, [because] Mr. Horton, ADTs representative engaged in
15
#:1373
1 proscribed acts directly related to said property within the Southern District of
2 Florida (emphasis added)); United States v. One Oil Painting Entitled Femme en
3 Blanc, 362 F.Supp.2d 1175, 1185 (C.D.Cal. 2005) (Because the painting was
4 transported from this district to Illinois, and this transportation in interstate commerce
5 is the basis for the forfeiture action, at least one of the acts or omissions giving rise to
6 the action occurred in this district).
7 In the context of forfeiture cases, courts have recognized that the acts or
8 omissions giving rise to the forfeiture are the acts or omissions constituting the
9 predicate criminal offenses. See, e.g., United States v. One 2006 Lamborghini
10 Murcielago, No. SACV 13-0907-DOC, 2015 WL 3752338, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 16,
11 2015) (finding the predicate offense of an unlawful structured transaction as the event
12 giving rise to the forfeiture) affd 2017 WL 663488 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017); United
13 States v. Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2000) (finding predicate offense of
14 mail fraud was the act giving rise to the forfeiture); Approximately $1.67 Million, 513
15 F.3d at 998 (finding allegations that the claimant attended meetings, stored cash and
16 narcotics, and mailed a false identification in the Northern District of California in
17 furtherance of a narcotics smuggling scheme constituted acts giving rise to
18 forfeiture in the district); see also All for Multilingual Multicultural Educ. v. Garcia,
19 No. CV 11-0215 PJH, 2011 WL 2532478, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2011) (explaining
20 that the alleged wrongful acts are the acts or omissions giving rise to a claim).
21 Here, the Complaint contains no allegation that the acts or omissions giving
22 rise to the forfeiture of any of the five Out-of-State Assets occurred in this District.
23 As a preliminary matter, the Governments statement of venue contains only the
24 following conclusory allegation:
25
Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1355(b)(1)(A) and
26 1355(b)(2) because acts and omissions giving rise to the forfeiture took
27
28
16
#:1374
1 place in the Central District of California . . . .6

2 (Compl. 16.) This bare allegation[ ] of jurisdiction does not establish the
3 existence of the requisite jurisdictional facts. 3 Parcels, 919 F. Supp. at 1452. Nor
4 does it describe with reasonable particularity . . . the circumstances from which the
5 claim arises so that the Court can determine whether jurisdiction is proper. See
6 Proceeds of Drug Trafficking of $75,868.62, 52 F.Supp.2d 1160, 1163.
7 The Complaints remaining allegations do not cure this defect because not one
8 alleges that any of the relevant acts or omissions occurred in this District. The
9 Government claims the Out-of-State Assets are forfeitable because they are traceable
10 to the proceeds of an SUA (First Claim) or a subsequent money laundering transaction
11 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956-57 (Second, Third, and Fourth Claims). Thus, the
12 Government could establish jurisdiction in this District if (i) any of the SUAs giving
13 rise to the forfeiture occurred in this District, or (ii) the subsequent laundering of the
14 proceeds from those SUAs occurred in this District. The Complaint fails to plead
15 either.
16 1. None Of the Alleged SUAs Occurred in This District
17 The Complaint alleges the Out-of-State Assets are traceable to proceeds from
18 four SUAs: (1) misappropriation of funds by a foreign official, (2) foreign bank fraud,
19 (3) wire fraud, and (4) transportation of stolen property. None of the acts or omissions
20 constituting these SUAs occurred in this District.
21 The first SUA misappropriation by a foreign official is foreign, both by
22 definition and according to the allegations in the Complaint. The misappropriation
23 by a foreign official refers to the diversion of 1MDB funds to MALAYSIAN
24 OFFICIAL 1. As the charts on pages 4-8 of this motion (Mot.) illustrate, none of
25
26 6
Section 1355(b)(2), referenced by the Government, clarifies that 1355(b)(1)
27 also establishes jurisdiction for forfeiture proceedings against assets located in a
28 foreign country.
17
#:1375
1 the people or entities involved were located in the United States, nor did any of the
2 relevant transactions occur in the United States.7 For example, the Complaint alleges
3 that funds from both the Good Star and Tanore phases were sent to MALAYSIAN
4 OFFICIAL 1 for payment. But all of the acts and omissions related to the Good Star
5 Phase occurred in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, and Switzerland.
6 (Mot. at 4-6.) And all of the acts and omissions related to the Tanore Phase occurred
7 in Abu Dhabi, British Virgin Islands, Curacao, Malaysia, and Singapore. (Mot. at 7-
8 8.) MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 is not alleged to have had any contact with this
9 District. The bank accounts in which he allegedly received money were located in
10 Singapore. (Compl. 94, 101, 260-62.)
11 The second SUA foreign bank fraud refers to misrepresentations that
12 resulted in the fraudulent transfer of 1MDB funds by foreign banks. Again, none of
13 the acts or omissions occurred in this country. For example, Good Star was formed
14 in Seychelles, and the 1MBD-PetroSaudi joint venture was formed in Malaysia.
15 (Compl. 44 n.6, 4758.) The alleged misrepresentations involved communications
16 between foreign parties and took place on foreign soil. (Mot. at 4-6). For instance,
17 the Government alleges that misstatements were made to the 1MDB Board at board
18 meetings held in Malaysia, or were communicated between 1MDB officials and
19 representatives of Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad, the Malaysian branch of a
20 German bank, or Bank Negara in Malaysia. (Compl. 41, 43, 60, 65.) Likewise,
21
22 7
On occasion, the Complaint notes that transfers between the foreign banks were
23 routed through a U.S. correspondent bank account at J.P. Morgan. (See, e.g., Compl.
79.) Although the Complaint does not specify the location of the J.P. Morgan
24 account, it is immaterial because that alone is insufficient to create a connection to
25 the United States. See United States v. Prevezon Holdings, LTD., 122 F. Supp. 3d 57,
71 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (In an otherwise wholly foreign wire fraud scheme, the only
26 domestic contact is a single wire transfer directed from [one offshore bank account to
27 another], with the transfer routed through New York . . . . [T]he court cannot conclude
that this single transfer is sufficient to overcome the presumption against
28 extraterritoriality).
18
#:1376
1 the alleged concealment of the misappropriated funds all occurred overseas (Compl.
2 8190.)
3 As to the last two SUAs wire fraud and transportation of stolen property
4 although the Complaint contains allegations that certain acts or omissions occurred in
5 the United States, not one is alleged to have occurred in this District. Wire fraud
6 occurs upon the use of a United States wire in furtherance of a scheme or artifice to
7 defraud with the specific intent to defraud. See United States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d 954,
8 960 (9th Cir. 2013). And transportation of stolen property and receipt of stolen money
9 under 2314 and 2315 occur when stolen property or money is transferred between
10 states, i.e., in interstate commerce, or between a foreign country and any state, i.e., in
11 foreign commerce. Here, no wire fraud transactions or transportation of stolen
12 property took place in California. Rather, as illustrated in the charts on pages 4-12 of
13 this motion, all of the transactions related to the Out-of-State Assets are alleged to
14 have occurred overseas or in unspecified locations in the United States. (Compl. 42
15 (alleging that $700 million [was] sent to an account at RBS Coutts Bank in Zurich);
16 94 (each of the four wire transfers totaling $330 million was a foreign exchange
17 transaction completed through financial institutions in Malaysia); 99 ($24,500,000
18 was transferred to an account at Riyad Bank, in Saudi Arabia); 104 (eleven wire
19 transfers totaling $368 million were sent from the Good Star Account to an account
20 held by Shearman & Sterling LLP (location unknown)); 109 (five wire transfers
21 totaling $389 million was transferred from the Good Star Account to an account at
22 BSI Bank in Singapore).) Accordingly, the alleged SUAs cannot form the basis for
23 in rem jurisdiction over the Out-of-State Assets in this District.
24 2. None Of the Alleged Subsequent Money Laundering Transactions
25 Occurred in this District
26 The Complaint similarly fails to allege that any subsequent laundering of
27 proceeds from the SUAs occurred in this District. The proceeds from the SUAs were
28 allegedly laundered, in part, through the purchase of the Out-of-State Assets in the
19
#:1377
1 United States. But as demonstrated in pages 8-12 of this motion, none of the
2 transactions leading up to the purchase of the Out-of-State Assets occurred in this
3 District. Instead, the transactions are alleged to have flowed through Switzerland,
4 Singapore, New York, Oklahoma, and other unspecified locations in the United
5 States. (Mot. 8-12.) Finally, none of the parties involved in the purchase of the Out-
6 of-State Assets are alleged to be located in this District.
7 In sum, none of the acts or omissions constituting the SUAs or the subsequent
8 money laundering of the SUA proceeds occurred in this District. Accordingly, there
9 is no jurisdiction over the Out-of-State Assets. For the same reasons, venue in this
10 District is also improper. See $50,900, 2016 WL 4257328, at *3 (finding venue
11 improper where there are no . . . facts alleged connecting any acts or omissions of
12 claimants to this district).
13 C. A Conspiracy Label Does Not Establish The Requisite Nexus Between the
14 Out-of-State Assets And This District
15 The Government has suggested that it can cure these jurisdictional defects by
16 attaching a conspiracy label to the Complaints allegations. The mere reference to
17 an ill-defined conspiracy to commit the alleged SUAs or acts of money
18 laundering, however, is not enough to establish the requisite connection between
19 these Out-of-State Assets and the assets located in this District. First, the plain
20 language of 1355(b)(1)(A) does not provide any explicit or implicit conspiracy
21 exception. Instead, it requires identification of an act or omission in this District
22 giving rise to the forfeiture. This phrasing requires a close and direct causal
23 connection between the particular act or omission in this District (here, the alleged
24 conspiracy) and the forfeiture of the specific Out-of-State Asset. See, e.g.,
25 Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer, 321 F.3d 1366, 1371 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding with
26 regard to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2), which provides for venue where events or
27 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, that [o]nly the events that directly
28 give rise to a claim are relevant); James River Ins. Co. v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.,
20
#:1378
1 585 F.3d 382, 386 (7th Cir. 2009) (Posner, J.) (explaining that arising from
2 implies a tighter connection than a mere but for cause). But the Government has
3 failed to identify any causal link at all between the purported acts in furtherance of
4 the alleged conspiracy and the Out-of-State Assets.
5 Nor does the clumping of all sixteen assets including assets that are
6 completely distinct from the Out-of-State Assets in one complaint create a nexus
7 between the Out-of-State Assets and this District. The Government seems to take the
8 position that a mere connection between this District and some of the assets named in
9 the Complaint is sufficient to establish jurisdiction for all of the sixteen assets,
10 including the Out-of-State Assets. This position has been soundly rejected. See, e.g.,
11 United States v. Funds Held in the Name or for the Benefit of Wetterer, 210 F.3d 96,
12 104-05 (2d Cir. 2000) (rejecting Governments argument that independent assets
13 form a single ball of wax for purposes of forfeiture, and instead evaluating
14 separately each asset for jurisdiction and venue); United States v. 51 Pieces of Real
15 Prop. Roswell, N.M., 17 F.3d 1306, 1310 (10th Cir. 1994) (Even if a district is the
16 proper venue for a civil forfeiture action, the court cannot proceed unless it has
17 jurisdiction over the defendant property.).
18 The Governments reliance on conspiracy as the basis for jurisdiction and
19 venue is further problematic where, as here, the allegations in the Complaint fail to
20 clearly delineate what the conspiracy is. The Government is required to make a
21 prima facie case of conspiracy going well beyond the bare, conclusory allegations of
22 conspiracy set forth in the Complaint. See, e.g., First Chicago Intl v. United Exch.
23 Co, 836 F.2d 1375, 1377-78 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (rejecting claim for jurisdiction based
24 on conspiracy where plaintiff made conclusory allegations of conspiracy and there
25 was no concrete evidence in the record indicating that there was a common plan).
26 The Governments entire 136-page Complaint contains only two factual allegations
27 concerning a purported conspiracy: (1) that this is a civil action in rem to forfeit
28 assets traceable to an international conspiracy to launder money misappropriated
21
#:1379
1 from 1MDB; and (2) that multiple individuals, including public officials and their
2 associates, conspired to fraudulently divert billions of dollars from 1MDB through
3 various means. (Compl. 5, 6.) The Government fails to identify with any clarity
4 the members of the conspiracy, the overt acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy,
5 or the locations of the acts and omissions constituting the conspiracy. Instead, the
6 Government merely repeats the phrase conspiracy to commit such offenses when
7 alleging each of its claims for relief without alleging any more specific facts that
8 supposedly constitute that alleged conspiracy. (Compl. 503, 506, 509, 512.)
9 These vague, generalized, and conclusory statements fall far short of allegations
10 made with reasonable particularity that establish a prima facie case of conspiracy.
11 See, e.g.; United States v. $50,040 in U.S. Currency, No. C 06-04552 WHA, 2007
12 WL 1176631, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2007); First Chicago, 836 F.2d at 1377-78.
13 The Complaint makes it impossible for the Court to determine the locations of the
14 acts or omissions constituting the alleged conspiracy for the purpose of assessing
15 jurisdiction or venue.
16 In short, having failed to allege that a single wrongful act giving rise to
17 forfeiture of the Out-of-State Assets occurred in the Central District, the Government
18 has also failed to allege the existence of any conspiracy that could potentially
19 subject the Out-of-State Assets to jurisdiction or venue in this District. It cannot
20 overcome this deficiency by simply repeating the boilerplate label of conspiracy
21 and claiming that this label brings assets with no connection to this District within
22 this Courts in rem jurisdiction.
23 D. The Exercise of Jurisdiction Over the Out-of-State Assets Would Violate
24 Due Process
25 Even if the Court were to conclude that statutory in rem jurisdiction and venue
26 lie under 28 U.S.C. 1355, jurisdiction would still be barred by the Due Process
27 Clause of the Fifth Amendment. While Congress has substantial power to set the
28 jurisdiction of the federal courts, the Due Process Clause limits that power. United
22
#:1380
1 States v. Batato, 833 F.3d 413, 423 (4th Cir. 2016). In this case, the Government
2 contends that it can, through the simple expedient of a conspiracy allegation, cause a
3 court to exercise jurisdiction over property located anywhere in the world even though
4 neither the property nor the owner of the property has any direct connection to this
5 District. Such potentially unbounded authority offends traditional notions of fair play
6 and substantial justice and cannot withstand scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment.
7 [I]n order to justify exercising jurisdiction in rem, the basis for jurisdiction
8 must be sufficient to justify an exercise of jurisdiction over the interests of persons in
9 a thing. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 207 (1977); see also Intl Shoe Co. v. State
10 of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 315 (1945).8
11 . Accordingly, [t]he standard for determining whether an exercise of jurisdiction
12 over the interest of persons is consistent with the Due Process Clause is the minimum-
13 contacts standard elucidated in International Shoe. Id. Here, the Government has
14 not established minimum contacts over the property owner, and therefore a finding of
15 jurisdiction would be unconstitutional.
16 Under International Shoe, a court may not exercise jurisdiction over a
17 nonresident defendant unless the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the
18 state, such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair
19 play and substantial justice. Newhard Cook & Co. v. Inspired Life Ctrs., Inc., 895
20 F.2d 1226, 1228 (8th Cir. 1990). The application of the fair play and substantial
21 justice test to in rem jurisdiction is premised on recognition that the phrase, judicial
22
23
8
Traditionally, in rem jurisdiction could only be asserted if the res was located in
24 the state or if it had been removed by accident or fraud. United States v. Ten
25 Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) in U.S. Currency, 860 F.2d 1511, 1513 (9th Cir.
1988). The Ninth Circuit has declined to decide whether such jurisdiction can be
26 expanded by the minimum contacts test of International Shoe. Id.; accord Batato,
27 833 F.3d at 423-24. Claimant here asserts that the exercise of in rem jurisdiction on
the facts here violates Due Process, regardless of whether the International Shoe test
28 applies.
23
#:1381
1 jurisdiction over a thing, is a customary elliptical way of referring to jurisdiction over

2 the interests of persons in a thing. Shaffer, 433 U.S. 186, 207 (1977); Batato, 833
3 F.3d at 423. In evaluating the sufficiency of the nonresident defendants contacts with
4 the forum state, the court focuses on the relationship between the defendant, the
5 forum, and the pending action. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,
6 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). In forfeiture cases, courts have looked to the following
7 factors to determine whether the exercise of in rem jurisdiction would violate Due
8 Process: (1) the extent to which the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the
9 privilege of conducting activities in the state; (2) whether the plaintiffs claims arise
10 out of those activities directed at the state; and (3) whether the exercise of personal
11 jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable. Batato, 833 F.3d at 424.
12 Neither the Out-of-State Assets nor Claimants are residents of California, and
13 neither have any substantial link to California. The Complaint does not allege any
14 contacts between the res and California. There has been no showing that Claimants
15 (the direct interest-holders of the res) have engaged in any contact with the forum
16 state. Likewise, the Complaint fails to allege that Claimants engaged in any conduct
17 in this forum or purposefully availed themselves of any of the privileges of this forum
18 state. None of the claims for forfeiture arises out of or results from the forum-related
19 activities of the Out-of-State Assets or the Claimants. Instead, as discussed above, all
20 of the claims for forfeiture of these Out-of-State Assets arise from conduct that
21 occurred outside of this District. An exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the
22 Out-of-State Assets would thus contravene traditional notions of fair play and
23 substantial justice under the Due Process Clause. Absent any tangible connection to
24 California, these cases must be dismissed.
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
24
#:1382
1 V. CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
3
4 DATED: May 15, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
5
Ekwan E. Rhow
6 Jeremy D. Matz
Naeun Rim
7
Patricia H. Jun
8 Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
9
10 By: /s/ Naeun Rim
11 Naeun Rim
Attorneys for Claimant JW Nile (BVI) Ltd.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25

JW Nile Motion To Dismiss

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

JW Nile Motion To Dismiss

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 2:16-cv-05364-DSF-PLA Document 130 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:1352

1 Ekwan E. Rhow - State Bar No. 174604

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

20 Newhard Cook & Co. v. Inspired Life Ctrs., Inc.,

1 United States v. $50,900,

22 United States v. One 2006 Lamborghini Murcielago,

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

8 EMI Rights JW Nile (BVI) Ltd.

15 Clearly delineating and distinguishing the Out-of-State Assets is critical

16 here because the Governments strategy is transparent but legally improper. In an

1 the glaring jurisdictional defects in these cases by lumping together, in a single

1 EVENT/PERSON/ENTITY LOCATION COMPL.

1 TANORE PHASE TRANSACTIONS

26 Granton bank account (Falcon Bank) SINGAPORE 241

27 Eric Tan MALAYSIA 30

1 EVENT/PERSON/ENTITY LOCATION COMPL.

4 Overseas Investment Funds BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS 245-46

6 MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 bank accounts MALAYSIA 94, 101-

15 Bombardier Jet (CV 16-5367) [Traced to GOODSTAR]

1 Symphony Park Lane Assets (CV 16-5370) [Traced to TANORE]

1 Time Warner Penthouse and Storage (CV 16-5374) [Traced to GOODSTAR]

18 CV 16-5375 - Greene Condominium [TRACED TO GOODSTAR]

1 DATE AMT FROM TO COMPL.

1 A. Jurisdiction and Venue Do Not Exist under 1355(b)(1)(B) Because the

1 place in the Central District of California . . . .6

1 jurisdiction over a thing, is a customary elliptical way of referring to jurisdiction over

Você também pode gostar