1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 980 F.2d
  5. 980 F.2d 233 (1992)
 

U.S. v. DOLLAR BANK MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT NO. 1591768456

No. 92-3173.

980 F.2d 233 (1992)

UNITED STATES of America v. DOLLAR BANK MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT NO. 1591768456, Dollar Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 60591768484, Dollar Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 60591772685, Dollar Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 60591778152, Equibank Certificate of Deposit No. 10410032199331, Equibank Money Market Account No. 5783112, Equibank Certificate of Deposit No. 10410032199341, Equibank Certificate of Deposit No. 10410032199360, Equibank Certificate of Deposit No. 10410032199569, First Seneca Bank Money Market Account No. 80273569, First Seneca Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 20054, First Seneca Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 200545, First Seneca Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 200546, Great American Federal Savings Account No. 300903659, Great American Federal Certificate of Deposit No. 10027818, Mellon Bank Money Market Account No. 3699793, Mellon Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 28368, Mellon Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 28430, Mellon Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 28500, Pittsburgh National Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 980354416799, Pittsburgh National Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 980354416800, Pittsburgh National Bank Certificate of Deposit No. 980354435829, Union National Bank Money Fund Account No. 124231267. Appeal of Claimant James E. STEY.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

November 25, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

H. Yale Gutnick, Frank Arcuri, Ronald D. Barber (Argued), Strassberger McKenna Gutnick & Potter, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Thomas W. Corbett, U.S. Atty., Paul J. Brysh, Asst. U.S. Atty., Michael L. Ivory (Argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

BEFORE: GREENBERG, COWEN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COWEN, Circuit Judge.

Claimant James E. Stey appeals the grant of summary judgment ordering civil forfeiture of $66,600 in bank deposits under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) (1988). The district court held that the funds were subject to forfeiture because they were deposited by Stey in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(3) (1988), which prohibits structuring transactions "for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases