Search court records - Searching within 3:00-cr-00284, page 2

All Courts
Federal Courts
Bankruptcies
PTAB
ITC

Filters

Display dockets
Display documents
- Decisions and Orders
- Exhibits
- Briefs and Motions
- Pleadings
- x Reset Selection

Like full text docket searches?

Get docket alerts, perform legal research, get updates of major decisions and orders, use our advanced analytics, and more. Request a Demo or create your account.

Click for

AnalyticsSearch

Motions and Pleadings

No motions found.

Displaying 9-23 of 30 results

sorted by

No. 1386 ORDER as to Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko re 1339 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Motion ...

Document USA v. Lazarenko, 3:00-cr-00284, No. 1386 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 22, 2008)

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

Nonetheless, it would be highly improper to allow the government to seize the funds at issue without putting them to the test of establishing that Lazarenko had an interest in the property seized.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Charles Breyer
Analyze Party
- Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko
Analyze Firm

No. 1370 BRIEFING ORDER as to Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko

Document USA v. Lazarenko, 3:00-cr-00284, No. 1370 (N.D.Cal. Jul. 10, 2008)

In DSI Associates LLC v. United States, 496 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that a third party who cannot satisfy the “standing requirements of section 853(n)” – by establishing a prior legal right or that he is a bona fide purchaser for value – is precluded by § 853(k) from intervening in a trial involving forfeiture.

In United States v. Lavin, 942 F.2d 177 (3rd Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit concluded that: “Congress did not intend section 853(n) to serve as a vehicle by which all innocent third parties who are aggrieved by an order of criminal forfeiture can petition for judicial relief.

Is footnote two of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion a binding holding that Liquidators may, at the least, challenge the underlying forfeitability of the seized accounts on the ground that “the affidavits submitted to support the government’s seizure lack[ed] probable cause” or is it dicta?

Even if Lazarenko used Eurofed, as an entity, to facilitate his criminal transactions, the government bears the burden of proving specifically that Bank of America account #W71-223433 was used to make “the prohibited conduct less difficult or more or less free from obstruction or hindrance.” United States v. Bornfield, 145 F.3d 1123, 1135 (10th Cir. 1998).

Does § 1963’s legislative history support Eurofed’s position that Congress intended – when drafting the virtually-identical ancillary proceeding provision in § 853 – to provide third parties with an opportunity to challenge the underlying forfeiture?

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Charles Breyer
Analyze Party
- Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko
Analyze Firm

No. 1311 ORDER GRANTING PETER KIRITCHENKO'S REQUEST FOR RESTITUTION as to Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko

Document USA v. Lazarenko, 3:00-cr-00284, No. 1311 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 4, 2008)

Finally, on November 9,2006, Kiritchenko’s counsel, George Niespolo, submitted a declaration seeking additional restitution in the amount of $650,000.00 for extortion payments made by Kiritchenko to Lazarenko.

The jury also made a factual finding that Lazarenko conspired to and did launder the proceeds of specified unlawful activity related to foreign extortion; (See Special Verdict, Docket no. 812).

The jury also made a factual finding that Lazarenko had engaged in a scheme to defraud Ukranian citizens of their right to honest services relating to Kiritchenko, Id.; and, c. Guilty - transportation of stolen property, (Counts 31 and Forty-Three through Fifty Two).

Here, unlike Kiritchenko’s request for $30,000,000.00, the record supports his request for $19,473,309.00, based upon his submission of specific and credible evidence namely; his testimony given during the course of the evidentiary hearings, his testimony given at trial in April 2004, the GPOU Resolution, prepared by the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Ukraine dated February 14, 2002, summaries of disbursements from and into various accounts prepared by FBI Special Agent Tonna (See Kiritchenko Restitution Hearing Exhibits 1-5 ) and the affidavits of Dan Ray, George Niespolo and Kiritchenko.

5The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Lazarenko lacks the requisite financial ability to preclude an order of restitution under VWPA and no objection has been tendered to the Court on this ground.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Charles Breyer
Analyze Party
- Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko
Analyze Firm

No. 1268 STIPULATION AND ORDER modifying conditions of release as to Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko on 11/14/07

Document USA v. Lazarenko, 3:00-cr-00284, No. 1268 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 26, 2007)

) Defendant.

____________________________________) Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Pavel I. Lazarenko may be away from his residence on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 from the hours of 12:00 p.m. through 6:00 p.m., for the purpose of attending court in the above-referenced matter.

Cite Document

Analyze