Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

PIDC-Sang Ah Park-Korean Corruption EB-5 Funds Forfeiture 2015

589 views

Published on

PIDC-Sang Ah Park-Korean Corruption EB-5 Funds Forfeiture 2015--a reminder to perform due diligence on potential investors. If their funds are suspect--don't let them invest in your project. It's easier and safer in the long run.

Published in: Investor Relations
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

PIDC-Sang Ah Park-Korean Corruption EB-5 Funds Forfeiture 2015

  1. 1. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST HELD IN THE NAME OF OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF SANG AH PARK IN THE PHILADELPHIA U.S. IMMIGRATION FUND, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION No. 15-CV-______ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE IN REM The plaintiff, United States of America, by its attorneys, WooS. Lee and Della Sentilles, Criminal Division, United States Department ofJustice, and Zane David Memeger, United States Attorney for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania, and J. Alvin Stout, III and Joseph F. Minni, Assistant United States Attorneys, in accordance with Supplemental Rule G(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for its complaint alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a civil action in rem to forfeit and condemn to the use and benefit ofthe United States ofAmerica a limited partnership interest held in the name of or for the benefit of Sang Ah Park ("Park") in the Philadelphia U.S. Immigration Fund (the "Defendant Asset"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(A) and (C).
  2. 2. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 30 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. The plaintiffbrings this action in rem in its own right to forfeit and condemn the Defendant Asset. This Court has jurisdiction over an action commenced by the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 1345, and over an action for forfeiture under 28 U.S.C. § 1355(a). 3. This Court has in rem jurisdiction over the Defendant Asset under 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b). Upon the filing ofthis complaint, the plaintiffrequests that this Court issue an arrest warrant in rem pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(3)(b), which the plaintiffwill execute upon the property pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355(d) and Supplemental Rule G(3)(c). 4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 1395(b), because a civil proceeding for the forfeiture ofproperty may be prosecuted in any district where any ofthe acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred. THE DEFENDANT IN REM 5. The Defendant Asset is a limited partnership interest held in the name ofor for the benefit ofPark in the Philadelphia U.S. Immigration Fund that law enforcement officials seized on or about August 22, 2014, pursuant to seizure warrant issued by this Court in Case No. 14-M-833. E. D. Pa. This fund is created and/or overseen by PIDC Regional Center, LP XXVI ("PIDC"), a Pennsylvania limited partnership. PIDC is comprised oftwo-hundred and one (201) limited partners and one general partner, CanAm GP XXVI, LLC, a New York corporation. The Defendant Asset is identified in PIDC's books and records as "Partner Number 116" and is a security that matured on or about September 1, 2014, and can be converted to approximately $500,000 in cash. The Defendant Asset currently is restrained and will remain within the jurisdiction ofthis Court during the pendency ofthis action. 2
  3. 3. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 3 of 30 BASIS FOR FORFEITURE 6. The Defendant Asset is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C) as it is property that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation ofoffenses constituting specified unlawful activities, including bribery ofa foreign public official (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv)), or a conspiracy to commit such offenses.1 7. The Defendant Asset is also forfeitable under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(A) which provides that property involved in a transaction or an attempted transaction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, or property traceable to such assets, is also subject to forfeiture. Section 1957 prohibits the conducting ofa monetary transaction with property known to be the proceeds of unlawful activity (i.e., the proceeds of a foreign offense involving bribery ofa public official) with a value greater than $10,000. 8. The Defendant Asset is also forfeitable under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(A) which also provides that property involved in a transaction or an attempted transaction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B), or property traceable to such assets, is subject to forfeiture. Section 1956(a)(1)(B) prohibits the conducting ofa financial transaction with property known to be the proceeds ofunlawful activity, including the proceeds of a foreign offense involving bribery ofa public official, with the intent to conceal the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of proceeds ofa specified unlawful activity. EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FORFEITURE 9. All dates are "on or about" the date listed. 10. The Defendant Asset is traceable to corruption proceeds accumulated by Chun Doo-hwan ("President Chun"), former President of the Republic ofKorea ("Korea"). 1 Bribery involving public officials, among other offenses, is prohibited in the Republic ofKorea by statute, including the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. See Attachment A. 3
  4. 4. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 4 of 30 11. President Chun solicited and accepted more than $200 million in bribes from Korean businesses while serving as Korea's president between 1980 and 1988. At Chun's criminal trial in Korea, the leaders of several major Korean corporations testified that while President Chun was in power, their businesses were compelled to pay millions ofdollars in bribes to President Chun to (i) avoid being retaliated against by President Chun's administration for not making such payments, and (ii) receive favorable treatment from President Chun's administration in exchange for making such payments. As a result, despite earning less than approximately 20 million Korean Won ("KRW") (approximately $20,000) per year as Korea's president, President Chun amassed an enormous cache of assets; comprised oftens of millions of dollars worth offunds in bank accounts, securities and financial instruments, collectively called a "Secret Fund," that he concealed from the Korean government. 12. President Chun and his associates then further used this Secret Fund to launder President Chun's corruption proceeds through a web of assets and bank accounts controlled by multiple shell companies and nominees, including his father-in-law General Lee Kyu Dong ("General Lee") and Korea's National Security Planning Agency acting at President Chun's direction and for his benefit. Significant portions ofthe bribery proceeds were converted into bearer bonds. 13. Specifically, beginning in 2000, General Lee transferred more than $20 million in the form ofbearer bonds from President Chun's Secret Fund to Chun Jae Yong ("J.Y. Chun"), President Chun's son, and Park, J.Y. Chun's current wife. J.Y. Chun and Park used these funds to open dozens of bank accounts and acquire millions ofdollars worth ofassets in Korea and the United States, often in the names of various nominees. One ofthese assets was the Defendant Asset, which Park acquired in or around August 2008. To acquire the Defendant Asset, J.Y. 4
  5. 5. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 5 of 30 Chun and Park liquidated a portion ofthe bearer bonds traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund. 14. On August 22, 2014, the Honorable Jacob P. Hart, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania, authorized the seizure ofthe Defendant Asset based on probable cause to believe that it was purchased with President Chun's corruption proceeds. A. Background 15. On December 12, 1979, President Chun orchestrated a military coup d'etat against Korea's civilian government. Foreign media reported that armed forces loyal to President Chun killed thousands ofcivilians who attempted to protest President Chun's seizure ofpower, including two thousand civilians in the City ofKwangju in May 1980. 16. Soon after seizing power, President Chun declared martial law, dissolved the Korean parliament, and ordered the drafting of a new constitution. On August 27, 1980, in an election in which President Chun was the only candidate, Korea's electoral college elected President Chun as the country's new president. 17. After holding office for more than eight years, President Chun agreed to step down as president amidst civilian protests demanding free elections erupting in Seoul and several other Korean cities. 18. Other than his official salary as a public official and a military officer, President Chun has had no other source of significant legitimate income in his lifetime. 19. President Chun was tried and convicted in 1996 by the Seoul District Court in Korea ofaccepting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bribes while in office. At trial, the leaders ofseveral major Korean corporations testified that they paid millions ofdollars worth of bribes to President Chun at the "Blue House," a complex of buildings which serves as the official 5
  6. 6. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 6 of 30 residence and executive office ofthe Korean president. As a result, President Chun was found to have accumulated corruption proceeds totaling approximately 220 billion KRW (approximately $220 million at the time ofPresident Chun's conviction in 1996). 20. In addition to bribery, President Chun was also charged and convicted in 1996 of murder, leading an insurrection against the republic, conspiring to commit an insurrection, participating in an insurrection, issuing illegal troop movement orders as an Army officer, and dereliction ofduty. 21. For the offenses described in paragraph 19, the Seoul District Court sentenced President Chun to death. Additionally, because ofthe bribery conviction, President Chun was ordered to pay approximately KRW 220 billion (approximately $220 million) in criminal restitution. On appeal, the Korean Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, including the bribery conviction, and entered a final order ofjudgment against President Chun on April 17, 1997, at which time President Chun began serving his prison sentence. 22. On December 22, 1997, President Kim Young-sam, Korea's then democratically- elected president, commuted President Chun's death sentence and released him from prison. President Kim's commutation ofPresident Chun's sentence, however, did not affect the Seoul District Court's restitution order. As of August 2013, President Chun still owed KRW 167.2 billion (approximately $167.2 million) under the 1996 criminal restitution order. Since 1997, President Chun has refused to comply with the Seoul District Court order and has insisted that he owns less than KRW 290,000 (approximately $290) in assets. President Chun's Receipt of Corrupt Payments 23. As set forth below, and established at trial in Korea through the testimony of representatives of major Korean corporations, between 1980 and 1988, President Chun directly 6
  7. 7. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 7 of 30 and indirectly solicited and received at least $217 million worth ofbribes and kickbacks from major Korean corporations while serving as president in order to (i) avoid being retaliated against by the Korean government for not making such payments, and (ii)·receive favorable treatment by the government in exchange for making such payments. 24. Specifically, Tables 1A through 1G detail approximately $217 million worth of bribes and kickbacks that President Chun was convicted ofreceiving. Date of Bribe Nov. 1980 Spring 1981 Date of Bribe Dec. 1982 Dec. 1982 Dec. 1982 Table 1A KRW 3 Billion (Approx. $3 Million) in Bribes Paid to Chun Between 1980 and 1981 Identi!I of Bribe Bribe Amount Details Giver in Won/ Eguivalent in U.S. Dollars Cho Joong-hoon KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House - Hanjin Group $1 Million Safety House while discussing the (Parent company of crash of a Korean Airlines flight Korean Airlines) near Seoul Kim Woo-choong KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Daewoo Group $2 Million Office at the Blue House Table lB KRW 8 Billion (Approx. $8 Million) in Bribes Paid to Chun in 1982 Identity of Bribe Bribe Amount in Details Giver Won/ Equivalent in U.S. Dollars Chung Ju-yung KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House Hyundai Group $1 Million Lee Byung-chul KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Samsung Group $5 Million Office at the Blue House Kim Woo-choong KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Daewoo Group $2 Million Office at the Blue House 7
  8. 8. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 8 of 30 Date of Bribe July 1983 July 1983 Oct. 1983 Dec. 1983 Dec. 1983 Dec. 1983 Date of Bribe June 1984 Oct. 1984 Nov. 1984 Nov. 1984 Table 1C KRW 16 Billion (Approx. $16 Million) in Bribes Paid to Chun in 1983 Identity of Bribe Bribe Amount in Details Giver Won/ Equivalent in U.S. Dollars Kim Jung-won KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House- Hanil Group $5 Million Safety House Kim Yong-san KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Kukdong Group $2 Million Office at the Blue House Cho Joong-hoon KRW 3 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Hanjin Group $3 Million Office at the Blue House - Safety House while discussing the downing ofa Korean Airlines jet over the Soviet Union in 1983 Chung Ju-yong KRW 3 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House HyundaiGroup $3 Million Lee Byung-chul KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House Samsung Group $1 Million Kim Woo-choong KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Daewoo Group $2 Million Office at the Blue House Table 1D KRW 26 Billion (Approx. $26 Million) in Bribes Paid to Chun 1984 Identity of Bribe Bribe Amount in Details Giver Won/ Equivalent in U.S. Dollars Kim Jung-won KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House - Hanil Group $5 Million Safety House Jang Sang-tae KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Dongkuk Steel $2 Million Shin Kyuk-ho KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House Lotte Group $1 Million Reception Room Kim Suk-won KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House - Ssangyong Group $1 Million Safety House while discussing government authorization for the company to build a golf 8
  9. 9. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 9 of 30 Nov. 1984 Nov. 1984 Dec. 1984 Dec. 1984 Dec. 1984 Dec. 1984 Dec. 1984 Date of Bribe Jan. 1985 May 1985 June 1985 July 1985 Sept. 1985 Sept. 1985 Nov. 1985 Dec. 1985 resort in Kangwon province Choi Soon-young KRW I Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Shindongah Group $1 Million Office at the Blue House Yang Chung-mo KRW I Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Kukje Group $1 Million Office at the Blue House Chung Ju-yong KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House - Hyundai Group $5 Million Safety House Lee Byung-chul KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Samsung Group $1 Million Choi Won-suk KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House - Dongah Group $5 Million Safety House Kim Woo-choong KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Daewoo Group $2 Million Office at the Blue House Kim Seoung-youn KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Hanhwa Group $2 Million Reception Room Table lE KRW 28.5 Billion (Approx. $28.5 Million) in Bribes Paid to Chun in 1985 Identity of Bribe Bribe Amount in Details Giver Won/ Equivalent in U.S. Dollars Cho Joong-hoon KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House - Hanjin Group $2 Million Safety House S.W.Kim KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House - Ssangyong Group $1 Million Safety House Jang Young-shin KRW 1.5 Bribe Paid at the Blue House Aekyung Group Billion/$1.5 Billion while discussing government authorization to construct a golf resort in Gyeongi province J.W.Kim KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House - Hanil Group $5 Million Safety House Lee Byung-chul KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Samsung $2 Million Park Sung-yop KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in Blue House KumhoGroup $2 Million Reception Room Jang Sang-Tae KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House in Dongkuk Steel $1 Million the Form of a Promissory Note Lee Byung-chul KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House 9
  10. 10. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 10 of 30 Dec. 1985 Dec. 1985 Dec. 1985 Date of Bribe May 1986 Sept. 1986 Sept. 1986 Sept. 1986 Sept. 1986 Dec. 1986 Dec. 1986 Dec. 1986 Dec. 1986 Dec. 1986 Samsung $2 Million Choi Won-suk. KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House - Dongah Group $5 Million Safety House while discussing that company's bid to build the Second Lybia Man-made River Project in Korea Kim Woo-choong KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Daewoo Group $2 Million Office at the Blue House Chung Ju-yong KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House - Hyundai Group $5 Million Safety House Table lF KRW 42.5 Billion (Approx. $42.5 Million) in Bribes Paid to Chun in 1986 Identity of Bribe Bribe Amount in Details Giver Won/ Equivalent in U.S. Dollars Jang Sang-Tae KRW 3 Billion/ $3 Bribe Paid at the Blue House Dongkuk. Steel Million Lee Byung-chul KRW 3 Billion/ $3 Bribe Paid in the Blue House Samsung Group Million Shin Kyuk.-ho KRW 3 Billion/ $3 Bribe Paid at the Blue House Lotte Group Million Reception Room Park Sung-yop KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House Kumho Group $2 Million Reception Room Koo Ja-Kyung KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House - Lucky Goldstar $5 Million Safety House Chung Ju-yong KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in Blue House- Hyundai Group $2 Million Safety House Lee Byung-chul KRW 3 Billion/ $3 Bribe Paid in the Blue House Samsung Group Million S.Y. Kim KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House HanwaGroup $2 Million Reception Room Choi Won-suk. KRW 5 Billion/$5 Bribe Paid in the Blue House - Dongah Group Million Safety House while discussing environmental regulation of certain lands owned by Dongah near Incheon, Korea Chey Jong Hun KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in Blue House SunKyong Group $5 Million Reception Room 10
  11. 11. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 11 of 30 Dec. 1986 Dec. 1986 Dec. 1986 Dec. 1986 Date of Bribe Jan. 1987 March 1987 May 1987 June 1987 June 1987 July 1987 Aug. 1987 Sept. 1987 Sept. 1987 Sept. 1987 Sept. 1987 Ryu Chan-woo KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Poongsan Group $1 Million Jang Chi-hyuk KRW 500 Million I Bribe Paid in the Blue House Kohap Group $500,000 Reception Room S. W.Kim KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House - Ssangyong Group $1 Million Safety House Lim Chang-wook KRW 7 Billion/ $7 Bribe Paid in the Blue House MiwonGroup Million while discussing the Korean National Tax Service's audit of the company Table lG KRW 93 Billion (Approx. $93 Million) in Bribes Paid to Chun in 1987 Identity of Bribe Bribe Amount in Details Giver Won/ Equivalent in U.S. Dollars Shin Kyuk-ho KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Lotte Group $1 Million Reception Room Cho Joon-hoon KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Hanjin Group $5 Million while discussing the Korean National Tax Service's audit of the Hanjin Group Jang Chi-hyuk KRW 500 Million/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Kohap Group $500,000 Reception Room Lee Byung-chul KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid at the Blue House Samsung Group $5 Million Kim Hyun-chul KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House - SammiGroup $2 Million Safety House Lee Jun-young KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in Blue House - Daelim Group $2 Million Safety House S.W.Kim KRW 3 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House - SSangyong Group $3 Million Safety House Chey KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House SunKyong Group $5 Million Reception Room S.Y. Kim KRW 3 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House HanwaGroup $3 Million Reception Room Park KRW 3 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Kumho Group $3 Million Reception Room Cho Sook-rae KRW 3 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House 11
  12. 12. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 12 of 30 Hyosung Group $3 Million Sept. 1987 Kim Sun-hong KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in Chun's Office at KiaGroup $2 Million the Blue House Sept. 1987 Park Young-joon KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in Chun's Office at Chunhung Group $1 Million the Blue House Oct. 1987 Park Yong-gon KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Doosan Group $1 Million Reception Room Oct. 1987 Kim Young-san KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Kukdong Group $2 Million Oct. 1987 Choi Soon-young KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Shindongah Group $1 Million Office at the Blue House Oct. 1987 Baek Yeong-gi KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House TongKook Group $1 Million Reception Room Oct. 1987 Choi Won-Suk KRW 3 Billion/ Bribe Paid in Chun's Office at Dongah Group $3 Million the Blue House Oct. 1987 Lee Dong Chan KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Kolon Group $2 Million Safety House Oct. 1987 Park Yong-hak KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in Chun's Office at Daenon Group $2 Million the Blue House Oct. 1987 Shin Kyuk-ho KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Lotte Group $5 Million Reception Room Oct. 1987 Koo Ja-Kyung KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Lucky Goldstar $5 Million Safety House Oct. 1987 Kim Woo-choong KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Daewoo Group $5 Million Office at the Blue House Oct. 1987 Cho Joong-hoon KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Hanjin Group $5 Million Safety House Oct. 1987 Chey Jong Hun KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Sunkyong Group $5 Million Reception Room Nov. 1987 Shin Kyuk-ho KRW 5 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Lotte Group $5 Million Reception Room Nov. 1987 Kim Jun-ki KRW 2 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House Dongbu Group $2 Million Reception Room Nov. 1987 Choi Moo Young KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in Chun's Office at Geunyoung $1 Million the Blue House Nongsan Group Nov. 1987 Han Young-ja KRW 10 Billion/ Bribe Paid in President Chun's Samyang $10 Million Office at the Blue House Chemical Dec. 1987 Chung Ju-yong KRW 1 Billion/ Bribe Paid in the Blue House 12
  13. 13. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 13 of 30 IHyundai Group I $1 Million. 25. The corruption payments set forth in Tables 1A through 1G were funneled into President Chun's Secret Fund, which was comprised of a portfolio ofbank accounts and assets maintained in the names ofvarious shell companies and nominees. 26. While President Chun was in office between 1980 and 1988, his Secret Fund was managed by Kim Jong Sang, the Blue House Presidential Security Office's financial secretary. Some ofthese funds were laundered through accounts in Korea controlled by the Korean National Security Planning Agency and opened in the names ofvarious shell companies, including Woojoo Hongbo Company and the Taeyang Munhwa Association. 27. After leaving office in 1988, President Chun transferred millions ofdollars from the Secret Fund to General Lee, his father-in-law. When President Chun was questioned by Korean prosecutors (the "Korean Prosecutor") in 2004, he explained that he "gave money to [General Lee] in 1996, because [President Chun] feared that there may be a misunderstanding and that the money may be seized later, if [he] had a lot ofmoney while [he] was being investigated" for corruption during the 1990s. B. Between 2000 and 2003, General Lee Transferred Approximately $23 Million in Cash and Bearer Bonds Traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund to J.Y. Chun 28. In spite ofthe fact that President Chun claimed to own less than $290 in assets in 1997, beginning in 2000, General Lee undertook a series oftransactions that resulted in approximately $23 million ofPresident Chun's assets, mainly in the form of bearer bonds,2 to be given to J.Y. Chun, the former President's son. 2 Bearer bonds are unregistered financial debt securities issued by a financial institution or corporation. The bonds are redeemable in cash by the person or entity in physical possession ofthe unregistered note. 13
  14. 14. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 14 of 30 29. J.Y. Chun completed his undergraduate education at Georgetown University in 1988 and studied at Keio University in Japan between 1994 and 1999, where he earned a master's degree and a doctorate in economic accounting. After graduating from Keio University at the age of 38, J.Y. Chun worked between 1999 and 2000 at Daewoo Securities. Prior to 1999 when he graduated from Keio University, J.Y. Chun was a full-time student and not gainfully employed for any significant period oftime. 30. Between 2000 and 2003 (the "Relevant Period"), J.Y. Chun received more than $23 million worth ofcurrency and bearer bonds traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund from his maternal grandfather, General Lee. 31. With the assistance ofhis then friend and business partner Ryu Chang-hee ("Ryu"), J.Y. Chun attempted to conceal these assets in Korea in dozens ofaccounts ("J.Y. Chun Fund Nominee Accounts") opened in the names ofnearly two dozen different family members, friends, and associates ("J.Y. Chun Fund Nominees"), including: 1. Park Sang-ah (J.Y. Chun's second and present wife); 2. Yoon Yang-ja (Park's mother); 3. Kim Cheul-soo (Ryu's friend); 4. Ryu Bong-soo (Ryu's father); 5. Kim Gui-rye (Ryu's mother); 6. Kim Moon-ja (Ryu's aunt); 7. Kim Tae-eun (Ryu's aunt's daughter-in-law); 8. Kim Soo-chang (Ryu's friend); 9. Eom Seung-tae (Ryu's friend); 10. Kim Do-sung (Ryu's friend); 11. Oh Dong-hwan (Ryu's friend); 12. Kim Sung-hyun (Ryu's friend); 13. Kim Kang-hun (Ryu's friend); 14. Jin Sung-il (Ryu's friend); 14
  15. 15. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 15 of 30 15. Byun Joong-ho (Ryu's friend); 16. Ahn Byung-kuk (Ryu's associate); 17. Cha Tae-seon (Ryu's associate); 18. Oh Sang-jin (Ryu's associate); 19. Lee Joong-yeob (Ryu's associate); 20. Kim Won-kyung (Ryu's associate); and 21. Kwon Gi-rak (J.Y. Chun's business associate). 32. As set forth in part below, during the Relevant Period, J.Y. Chun, Ryu, and the J.Y. Chun Fund Nominees engaged in a series oftransactions in which millions of dollars worth ofbearer bonds traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund were redeemed and used to open multiple J.Y. Chun Fund Nominee Accounts in Korea. 33. When J.Y. Chun was questioned in 2013 by the Korean Prosecutor about the funds he maintained in these J.Y. Chun Fund Nominee Accounts, he made several statements. At times, he denied recalling the sources ofthe funds; but he also acknowledged that the funds in these accounts originated from "[his] father's money." Although J.Y. Chun initially claimed to the Korean Prosecutor that he "never thought of the money [in the Secret Fund Nominee Accounts] as belonging to [his] father," he later acknowledged to the Korean Prosecutor, "I always thought of [the funds in the J.Y. Chun Nominee Accounts] unconditionally as my father's money. It is true that I did as such. I am very sorry about that now." 34. Ryu, a close friend and business partner ofJ.Y. Chun, corroborated J.Y. Chun's admissions that the funds maintained in these Secret Fund Nominee Accounts originated from President Chun's Secret Fund. Ryu explained to the Korean Prosecutor in 2013 that the funds in these accounts were traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund and that J.Y. Chun had no source of substantial income during the Relevant Period other than his father's Secret Fund. Likewise, Ryu informed the Korean Prosecutor in 2013 that, "I heard from Kang Shin Hak that [during the 15
  16. 16. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 16 of 30 Relevant Period, J.Y. Chun] was managing former President Chun Doo Hwan's money ...." Kang Shin Hak, according to Ryu, was a close friend, high school classmate, and business partner ofJ.Y. Chun, who was familiar with J.Y. Chun's financial activities at that time. 35. December 2000 Transaction: In or around December 2000, J.Y. Chun received approximately KRW 7.355 billion (approximately $7.355 million) in National Housing Corporation bearer bonds ("Housing Bonds") from General Lee. According to Ryu, these Housing Bonds were acquired with funds traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund.3 Indeed, President Chun also admitted to the Korean Prosecutor that these Housing Bonds were acquired with his funds. 36. Soon after receiving these Housing Bonds, in or around December 19, 2000, J.Y. Chun instructed Ryu to distribute KRW 1.3 billion (approximately $1.3 million) in cash to various J.Y. Chun Fund Nominees. Ryu distributed these funds in KRW 50 million (approximately $50,000) increments and caused them to be deposited into twenty-six (26) different Secret Fund Nominee Accounts. Within two days ofthese funds being deposited, Ryu then withdrew on J.Y. Chun's behalfKRW 700 million (approximately $700,000) ofthese funds in cash and returned these proceeds to J.Y. Chun's custody. 37. June 2001 Transaction: In June 2001, J.Y. Chun asked Ryu to find additional nominees who would be willing to redeem an additional KRW 1.5 billion (approximately $1.5 million) in bearer bonds on his behalf. Ryu recruited fourteen individuals to redeem these bonds on J.Y. Chun's behalf. These individuals included Ryu's mother, Ryu's maternal aunt, the 3 In addition to the KRW 7.355 billion in Housing Bonds provided to J.Y. Chun by President Chun, J.Y. Chun also received an additional KRW 9.34 billion (approx. $9.34 million) in "National Housing" bonds from General Lee. Although Korean prosecutors alleged in 2004 that these bonds were acquired with funds from President Chun's Secret Fund, the Korean Prosecutor was unable to obtain a conviction as to these additional allegations. When the Korean Prosecutor again inquired ofJ.Y. Chun in 2013 how these bonds were purchased by General Lee, J.Y. Chun could provide no explanation as to the source ofthe funds used to acquire these bonds. 16
  17. 17. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 17 of 30 daughter-in-law ofRyu's maternal aunt, former colleagues ofRyu from the military, and various friends and third parties. After Ryu distributed the bonds to these individuals in increments of between KRW 50 million (approximately $50,000) and KRW 100 million (approximately $100,000), these Secret Fund Nominees, in tum, redeemed the relevant bonds and provided the proceeds to Ryu, who then provided the funds to J.Y. Chun in the form of bank checks. 38. September 2001 Transaction: In September 2001, Ryu asked Kim Cheul-soo, a friend ofhis, to open a brokerage account atE-Trade (the "Nominee E-Trade Account"), a stock brokerage firm with offices in Seoul, in order to redeem and hold additional bearer bonds for J.Y. Chun. Soon after opening this account, J.Y. Chun asked Ryu to redeem a bearer bond worth KRW 4.3 billion (approximately $4.3 million) through the Nominee E-Trade Account. J.Y. Chun, according to Ryu, waited outside and declined to enter E-Trade's offices while Ryu was inside redeeming the aforementioned bond and depositing the proceeds into an account. Later that month, Kwon Gi-rak ("Kwon"), J.Y. Chun's business associate and friend, withdrew these funds and delivered the proceeds directly to J.Y. Chun. 39. September 10,2001, Transaction: Again, on September 10, 2001, J.Y. Chun asked Ryu to use the Nominee E-Trade Account to redeem an additional KRW 8.4 billion (approximately $8.4 million) in bearer bonds. Like the last time, J.Y. Chun waited outside in his car while Ryu entered E-Trade's offices to redeem the bonds and then deposited the proceeds. Later that month, Kwon was again directed by J.Y. Chun to withdraw these funds and deliver the proceeds directly to him. 40. March 19,2002, Transaction: On March 19,2002, approximately 14 months before J.Y. Chun acquired some real property in the U.S. in Alpharetta, Georgia (the "Georgia Property"), J.Y. Chun asked that Ryu use the Nominee E-Trade account a third time to redeem a 17
  18. 18. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 18 of 30 bond with a value ofKRW 1 billion (approximately $1 million). Again, J.Y. Chun waited outside while Ryu went inside E-Trade's offices to redeem the bond and deposit the proceeds on J.Y. Chun's behalf. Later that month, Kwon again withdrew these funds and delivered the proceeds directly to J.Y. Chun. 41. In 2004, the Korean Prosecutor investigated and charged J.Y. Chun for criminal tax evasion because ofhis failure to report the funds he received from President Chun's Secret Fund, including approximately KRW 7.355 Billion (approximately $7.355 million) in Housing Bonds he received in December 2000 from his grandfather General Lee. It was alleged that these Housing Bonds were purchased with funds traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund. J.Y. Chun was ultimately convicted at trial and received a suspended sentence of 30 months imprisonment for this offense. C. J.Y. Chun Used Funds in the Secret Fund Nominee Accounts to Acquire Assets and Make Further Investments in Korea 42. Within three years offinishing school, during which time he was not employed, J.Y. Chun used the funds in the Secret Fund Nominee Accounts to acquire assets in Korea, including a home in Seoul and three townhomes in the Junart Vill complex ("Junart Units"), also in Seoul, valued at approximately $2.6 million. J.Y. Chun also invested KRW 700 million (approximately $700,000) in Ware Valley, Inc. ("Ware Valley"), his failed technology firm. J.Y. Chun appointed Ryu to be the firm's chiefexecutive officer. According to Ryu, however, Ware Valley never generated a profit. 43. In attempting to conceal his acquisition ofthese Korean assets, J.Y. Chun held these assets in the names of nominees. For instance, in acquiring the Junart Units, J.Y. Chun instructed Ryu to title these properties in Ryu's father's name. Ryu explained to the Korean 18
  19. 19. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 19 of 30 Prosecutor in 2013 that the Junart Units were titled in his father's name because J.Y. Chun did not possess sufficient legitimate income to explain his acquisition of such assets, and J.Y. Chun wished to, in J.Y. Chun's words, "dodge suspicion." 44. In addition to the Junart Units, J.Y. Chun and Park also acquired the Georgia Property in May 2003 for $365,000. After selling the Georgia Property in 2004 for $403,000, J.Y. Chun used the proceeds ofthe Georgia Property sale in part to invest $896,000 in equity in his acquisition of a home in Newport Beach, California, which he purchased for $2,240,000 (the "California Property"). Both the California Property and the Georgia Property were titled in the names oftwo different legal trusts. The mother ofJ.Y. Chun's then girlfriend, Sang Ah Park, was the nominal trustee of both trusts. D. The Defendant Asset Is Traceable to Chun's Secret Funds 45. During the same time period that J.Y. Chun received approximately $23 million worth offunds traceable to his father's Secret Fund, J.Y. Chun opened multiple bank accounts in the United States, secretly funneling hundreds ofthousands ofdollars traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund into the U.S. financial system to acquire assets, including the Defendant Asset and the Georgia and California properties. 46. Specifically relating to the Defendant Asset, J.Y. Chun and Park laundered and used funds traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund, to acquire bearer bonds worth approximately $2.1 million (the "Relevant Bearer Bonds") in Korea in 2001. J.Y. Chun and Park then liquidated the Relevant Bearer Bond~ on or about July 14, 2006, and concealed the proceeds of the liquidation in the bank accounts ofJ.Y. Chun's two then-minor sons-Chun Woo Sung and Chun Woo Won-before using approximately $530,000 ofthese proceeds to acquire the Defendant Asset from PIDC on or about April 9, 2009. 19
  20. 20. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 20 of 30 47. J.Y. Chun possessed no significant source of income other than funds traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund at the time he purchased the Relevant Bearer Bonds in 2001. Indeed, as described in Table 1 below, J.Y. Chw1's income by his own admission to the Korean government was less than $38,000 per year from 1999 through 2001 , woefully less than an annual amount necessary to acquire the more than $20 million in assets held by nominees for J.Y. Chun's benefit during the Relevant Period. Specifically, J.Y. Chun reported in his tax filings with the Korean government that he earned the following net income: Table 1 J.Y. Chun's Reported Net Income 1999-2002 Tax Year Amount Reported Amount Reported (inKRW) (Approx. U.S.D. Equivalent) 1999 37,757,137 $37,757 2000 30,034,887 $30,034 2001 33,174,432 $33,174 2002 24,660,760 $24,660 48. Although J.Y. Chun owned two software companies during the Relevant Period- Ware Valley in Korea and OR Solutions in Georgia- neither firm generated any profit. Indeed, OR Solutions, according to its former chief executive officer, never generated any revenue at all and incurred substantial financial losses. 49. Similarly, according to Ware Valley's C.E.O., Ware Valley was not profitable in Korea during the Relevant Period, and J.Y. Chun's only source of available funds and income during the Relevant Period was President Chun's Secret Fund. 1. Park Acquired the Defendant Asset With Proceeds of the Relevant Bearer Bonds Purchased in 2001 Using Funds Traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund 20
  21. 21. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 21 of 30 50. Park acquired the Defendant Asset with funds traceable to J.Y. Chun's sale ofthe Relevant Bearer Bonds on or about July 14,2006. The Relevant Bearer Bonds, which J.Y. Chun acquired in approximately 2001, were identified with sequential serial numbers ranging from (i) A00004701F through A00004800F; (ii) A00003641F through A00003700F; and (iii) A00004251F through A00004300F. 51. On July 14,2006, J.Y. Chun liquidated the Relevant Bearer Bonds for KRW 2,728,504,442 (approximately $2,728,504) at the Gangnam Branch ofthe Korea Securities Finance Corporation. Specifically, J.Y. Chun liquidated the below-referenced bonds: Table 2 Value ofthe Relevant Bearer Bonds Number of Bearer Serial Number of Individual Value of Approx. Combined Bonds Bearer Bonds Each Bearer Bond Net Value in KRWI U.S. Dollars 100 A00004701F- KRW 10 million KRW 1,299,287,8231 A00004800F $1,299,287 60 A00003641F- KRW 10 million KRW 779,572,698 A00003700F I $779,572 50 A00004251F- KRW 10 million KRW 649,643,921 A00004300F I $649,643 52. On or about August 10,2006, J.Y. Chun deposited KRW 1,000,000,000 (approximately $1,000,000) ofthe monies he obtained from liquidating the Relevant Bearer Bonds into an account at Hana Bank in Korea maintained in the name ofWoo Sung Chun, J.Y. Chun's then minor son. An additional KRW 1,000,000,000 (approximately $1,000,000) from these same proceeds were deposited into another account at Hana Bank maintained in the name ofWoo Won Chun, another ofJ.Y. Chun's then minor sons. At the time these transactions occurred, Woo Won Chun was ten (10) years old and Woo Sung Chun was twelve (12) years old. 21
  22. 22. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 22 of 30 53. On August 4, 2008, KRW 271 million (approximately $271,000) each was transferred from the accounts of Woo Sung Chun and Woo Won Chun at Hana Bank to J.Y. Chun's account at Hana Bank. Later that same day, KRW 539,332,500 (approximately $539,332) ofthese same funds were transferred to Park's bank account at Korea Exchange Bank in Korea before being deposited into PIDC's escrow account at Korea Exchange Bank pursuant to an escrow agreement entered into between PIDC and Park (the "PIDC Escrow Agreement"). The funds in the PIDC escrow account were then used to acquire the Defendant Asset. 54. Neither J.Y. Chun nor Park reported sufficient income to explain the family's acquisition and ownership of more than $20 million in assets, including the Relevant Bearer Bonds, during the Relevant Period. J.Y. Chun was not gainfully employed and possessed no source of substantial income other than funds traceable to President Chun's Secret Fund at the time he obtained the Relevant Bearer Bonds which were liquidated and used to acquire the Defendant Asset in 2009. As is set forth below, neither did his wife, Park, in whose name the Defendant Asset is held, have sufficient income or other sources offunds to purchase the Relevant Bearer Bonds. 55. When J.Y. Chun was asked by the Korean Prosecutor in 2013 how he accumulated more than $20 million in assets in Korea and the United States during the Relevant Period, he responded either by admitting that he received millions of dollars worth offunds from his father's Secret Fund or by contending that he could not recall. Likewise, J.Y. Chun acknowledged that he used the bank accounts ofvarious nominees, including Park's mother, to execute international wire transfers into the United States in 2003 because he could not identify a legitimate source for his own funds. 22
  23. 23. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 23 of 30 56. Park further corroborated J.Y. Chun's representations, explaining to the Korean Prosecutor in 2013 that J.Y. Chun used a bank account in her mother's name to send funds into the United States because her husband "had no money with a source that could be shown." Park further explained: "[B]efore going to the U.S. [in 2003, J.Y. Chun] had to take money with him to buy a house and for living expenses, and [J.Y. Chun] said that if he sent money to the U.S. the source would be obvious; since [J.Y. Chun's] money had no source, in order to transfer money with a source" he used her mother's account. 57. Ryu, J.Y. Chun's former business partner, also confirmed to the Korean Prosecutor in 2013 that in 2001 (the year J.Y. Chun acquired the Relevant Bearer Bonds), "[J.Y. Chun] didn't have a particular job or income. He didn't have to borrow money from anyone since it was sufficient for him to live off of his father's Secret funds." 58. As described in Table 3 below, Park's net income is insufficient to be the source of her family's acquisition and ownership of more than $20 million in assets, including the Relevant Bearer Bonds, during the Relevant Period. Specifically, Park reported in her tax filings with the Korean government that she earned the following net income: Tax Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Table 3 Park's Reported Net Income 1999-2002 Amount Reported Amount Reported (in KRW) (Approx. U.S.D. Equivalent) 24,855,449 $24,855 40,171 ,997 $40,171 9,581 ,947 $9,581 19,181,104 $19,181 17,071 ,243 $17,071 23,424,365 $23,424 125,708,849 $125,708 60,669,546 $60,669 23
  24. 24. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 24 of 30 FOREIGN LAW BASIS FOR FORFEITURE 59. Bribery ofa public official is a criminal offense under Korean law, as enumerated by the Korean Criminal Code, including but not limited to Article 129 (bribery); Article 130 (bribery ofthird persons); Article 131 (improper action after acceptance of bribe and subsequent bribery); and Article 132 (acceptance of bribes through good offices). English translations of these provisions are set forth in Attachment A. herein. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C) 60. Paragraphs 1 through 59 above are incorporated by reference as iffully set forth 61. The Defendant Asset is property that constitutes, or is derived from, proceeds traceable to a foreign offense involving bribery of a public official (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv)), which is a specified unlawful activity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv), and a conspiracy to commit such offenses. 62. Therefore, the Defendant Asset is subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C). herein. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) 63. Paragraphs 1 through 62 above are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth 64. The Defendant Asset is involved in, or is traceable to property involved in, a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Specifically, the 24
  25. 25. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 25 of 30 Defendant Asset is involved in or is traceable to a monetary transaction in criminally derived property ofa value greater than $10,000, that is a foreign offense involving bribery ofa public official (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv)). 65. Accordingly, the Defendant Asset is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A). herein. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(l)(A) 66. Paragraphs 1 through 65 above are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth 67. The Defendant Asset is involved in, or is traceable to property involved in, a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). Specifically, the Defendant Asset is involved in or traceable to a financial transaction involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is a foreign offense involving bribery of a public official (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv)), and which was designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership or the control ofthe proceeds ofthe specified unlawful activities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). 68. Accordingly, the Defendant Asset is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A). herein. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(A) 69. Paragraphs 1 through 68 above are incorporated by reference as iffully set forth 70. The Defendant Asset is involved in, or is traceable to property involved in, a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B). 25
  26. 26. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 26 of 30 Specifically, the Defendant Asset is, or is traceable to funds that were, transported, transmitted, or transferred to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States, knowing that the funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds of some form ofunlawful activity and knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control ofthe proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is a foreign offense involving bribery ofa public official (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv)). 71. Accordingly, the Defendant Asset is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A). herein. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (18 U.S.C. §981(a)(l)(A)) 72. Paragraphs 1 through 71 above are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth 73. The Defendant Asset is involved in, or is traceable to property involved in, a conspiracy to launder the proceeds of specified unlawful activities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Specifically, the Defendant Asset is involved in, or is traceable to funds that were involved in, a conspiracy: (1) to conduct and/or attempt to conduct financial transactions which involve the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is (i) a foreign offense involving bribery ofa public official (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv)), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i); (2) to engage and/or attempt to engage in monetary transactions in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, such property having been derived from specified unlawful activities, that is (i) a foreign offense involving bribery of a public official (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv)), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957; and (3) to transport, transmit, or transfer to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States, 26
  27. 27. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 27 of 30 knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is (i) a foreign offense involving bribery of a public official (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv)), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i). 74. Accordingly, the Defendant Asset is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)( I)(A). WHEREfORE, the plainti IT, United States of America, requests: 1. The Defendant Asset be proceeded against according to the Jaw and the rules of this Court, and that due notice be given to all the interested parties to appear and show cause why forfeiture should not be decreed. 2. The Court, for the reasons set forth herein, adjudge and decree that the Defendant Asset be forfeited to the United States of America and disposed of in accordance with existing laws, together with costs, and tor such other relief as this Court deems proper and just. Date: February 18, 2015. Respectfully submitted, M. KENDALL DAY, ACTING CHIEF ASSET FORFEITURE AND MONEY LAUNDERING SECTION Criminal Division United States Department of Justice EL CLJ- ~N , As stant Deputy Chief WOO S. LEE, Trial Attorney DELLA G. SENTILLES. Trial Attorney Criminal Division United States Department of Justice 27
  28. 28. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 28 of 30 OF COUNSEL: ZANE DAVID MEMEGER United States Attorney ~1 ALVIN STOUT. III ssistant United States Attorney hief, Asset Forfeiture Section JO ant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America Date: February 18,2015. 28
  29. 29. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 29 of 30 VERIFICATION GEOFFREY I. GORDON, being of legal age, verifies, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), declares and states as follows: 1. I am a special agent with Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Depmtment of Homeland Security, and am assigned to the investigation in this case. 2. I have reviewed the foregoing Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem and know the contents thereof, and that the matters contained in the Verified Complaint are true to my own knowledge, except that those matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief and as to those matters I believe them to be true. 3. The sources of my knowledge and information and the grounds of my belief are the official files and records of the United States, publicly available files and historical information, files and records compiled by the Supreme Prosecutor' s Office of the Republic of Korea, the Ministry of Justice ofthe Republic of Korea and the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office, information supplied to me by other law enforcement officers, experts, and other witnesses, as well as my investigation of tllis case, together with others, as a special agent. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February /~ , 2015. GEOFFREY I. GORDON Special Agent Homeland Security Investigations
  30. 30. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 30 of 30 ATTACHMENT A Relevant Bribery Provisions of the Korean Criminal Code Chapter VII Crimes Concerning the Duties of Public Officials: Article 129 (Acceptance of Bribe and Advance Acceptance) A public official or an arbitrator who receives, demands or promises to accept a bribe in connection with his duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or suspension ofqualifications for not more than ten years. Article 130 (Bribe to Third Person) A public official or an arbitrator who causes, demands or promises a bribe to be given to a third party on acceptance ofan unjust solicitation in connection with his duties shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or suspension ofqualifications for not more than ten years. Article 131 (Improper Action after Acceptance of Bribe and Subsequent Bribery) (1) If a public official or an arbitrator takes an improper action after committing the offenses under the preceding two Articles, imprisonment for a limited term ofnot le~s than one year shall be imposed. (2) Ifa public official or an arbitrator receives, demands or promises to receive a bribe, or causes, demands or promises a bribe to be given to a third party, after taking an improper action in the course ofperforming his duties, the punishment specified in the preceding paragraph shall be imposed. Article 132 (Acceptance of Bribe through Good Offices) A public official who, by taking advantage ofhis post, receives, demands or agrees to receive a bribe concerning the use ofthe good offices in connection with the affairs which belong to the functions of another public official, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or suspension ofqualifications for not more than seven years.
  31. 31. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1-1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 3JS44 (Rev .t2112) . . ~:'?,~. . C.IVIL COVER SHEET 1 5-{jj. 8/tThe JS 44 Civil cover sheet an.d the mfo . .(C.ontaml!d herem. n.cnh.er re_place nor sup.p.le·m·cnt the filing and service of pleadinus or other papers us required by law except as provided bJ. l9~a! rules o(Cf!urt Tlis , approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. is requ'ired for the use of the Clerk ofCourt for the purpose Oltrullatmg Ute CIVIl docket sheet. (S£h'IN:,1RUC170N.'l' ONNii-TI'AGI£ OF 711/S I"ORM,} . I. (a) PLAINTIFFS United States ofAmerica (b) (c) County of Residence offirst Ltited Plaintiff N/A (I-:XCHP7"IN !IS 1'1-~INT/FF CASI:X) Anomeys (Firm !•lome:. Addre.cs. uml1t:lephrme Nwnh~r) U.S. Department ofJustice Criminal Division • 7'sset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section 1400 New York Ave. NW. Washington D.C. 20530 Phone: 202·514·1263 Woo Lee and Della Sentilles, Trial Alomeys DEFENDANTS A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTERE ;LD IN THE NAME THE BENEFIT OF SANG AH PARK IN THE. PHILADELPHIA U.S. IMMIGRATION FUND County of Residence of First Listed D.:fendant fiN US I'!AIN71FF CASES Ol'Llj NOTE: IN !.AND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE WCAT!ON Or TI·IE TRACT OF LAND INVOl. VED. Anomeys (l{ltlltlwn) N?A 111. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X"mOneBaxfi!rl'lamttfJ (!'or Diversity Cases Only) undOm• Boxfor IJcjeml!mtj PTF DEF PTF DEF Citizen orTI1is Stale 0 I 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4 ofBusin~ss In TI1is Stale V ASIS OF JURISDICTION fl'lace a11 "X" m One Box D11ly) U.S. Government 03 Federal Question Plmntiff (U.S. Govemmelll Nm a Party) U S Go'emment 04 Diversity Citizen ofAnother State 02 0 2 Incorporated und Principal Place 05 osDefendani (Indicate Cm~enslnp t!{l'urt/us m Item /II) ofBusiness In Another S.tatc Citizen or Subject ofu OJ 0 For~ign Nation 06 06 Forci!,'ll Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Piacean "X"mOneBt>tOnly) tw~ '""'·P:;,~Jq8!illitt&RlfS'~jl~Jii"., .l!1RR&I!tli!IRIWEN11&~ ~~~ ~0ll' 0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONA. INJll;l~'Dru, R•IMOOS•i~re 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims Act 0120 Marine 0 liOAirplanc 0 365 Personal Injury • of Prop~ny 2I USC 881 0423 Withdrawn! 0 400 State Reapponionm~nl 0 130 Miller Act 0 31 5 Airplane Product Produ~t Liability 181 90 Other 28 usc 157 0 410 Antitrust 0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 367 Health Carel 0 430 Hanks and Banking 0 150 Recovery ofOverpayment 0 320 Assault. Libd & Phnnnaceutical !~,i!J>j{· ~~ 0 450 Commerce & Enforcement ofJu!l&'lllent SlandL'T Personal Injury 0 820 Cop}'rights 0 460 Dcponation 0 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 0830Pmcnt 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and 0 152 Recovery ofDeluulted L1abJiity 0 368 Ashestos Personal 0 840 Tradem11rk Corrupt Organi:t.11ions Student tuans 0 340 Marine Injury Product 0 480 Consumer Credit (Excludes Veternns) 0 345 Marine Product Liability & ' ' 0 490 CabletSal TV 0 153 Recovery ofOverpayment Liability PERSONAl. PROPERTY 07IO.Iiair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (!395ft) 0 850 Securities/Commoditiesi ofVeteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud Act 0 S62 Black Lung (923) Exchange 0 160 Sto.ckholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vchtcle 0 37! Tnuh in Lending 0720 Labor/Management 0 8.63 DIWCIDIWW (405(1!)) 0 890 Other Stalulory Actions 0 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal Relations 0864 SSID Tille XVI 0 891 Agricultural Acts 0195 Contract Product Unbility 0 360 Other Personal Proll¢ny Damage 0 740 Railway Labor Mt 0 865 RSI (40S(g)) 0 893 Environment.1l Mailers 0 196 Fl'llllchisc Injury 0 385 Prop¢ny Damage 0751 Family and Mcdil:al 0 895 ~·rcedom of!nfonnrnion 0 362 Pernonnl Injury • Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpracti~-c 0790 Other Labor Litigation 0 896 Arbitration · JMIUlL ~~~~~'3(~ ~ . :IRf1i.(tlV.iR;lJMlill(&lllll:t> 0791 Employee Retirement 0 899 Administrative Procedure Q no Land Condemnation 1g 440OtherCivilRights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act es (U.S Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of 0 220 Foreclos.ure 0 441 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision 0 230 Rent Leas!! & Ejeclmenl 0 442 Employment 0 510 Motions to Vu,;ate 0 871 IRS-Third Pnny 0 950 Constitutionalily of 0 240 Tons to Land . 0 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC'7609 State Stalutcs 0 245Ton Product Liabilily Accommodations 0 530 Genera! 0 290 All Other Real Propeny 0 445 Amer. wlDisabilities 0 535 Death Penalty Employment Other: ! Naturallzallon Application 0 446 Amer. w!Disabilities 0 540 Mandamus & Olher 0465 Other lmmigmtion Other 0 550 Civil Rights Actions 0 448 Education 0 555 Prison Condition 0 560 Civil Dctain~:e • Condinons of /Y Confinement ~ ORIGIN !1'1oce an "X" m One Ba.f Only) I Original 02 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 04 Reinstated or 0 5 Tmnsferred from 0 6 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellat~: Court Reopened Another District Litigation <-I (.>peq[v) Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you lli'C filing (Do 11111 eirejllrisdicrional sta1111es unless diversity}: VI. CAUSE OF 18 U.S.C. Sccuon 981 ACTION Briefdescription ofcause: Civil.actionto forfeit property VII. REQUESTED IN 0 CHECK IF THIS IS ACLASS M~TION COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. VIII. RELATED CASE S( ) IF ANY DATE 02/18/2015 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT# rs~e /ltslflt.twn.>) AMOUNT JUDGE N/A APPLYING IFP DEMANDS N/A CHECK YES only if de(narde::complaint: JURY DEMANl>: I181Yc 0 No ..../ DOCKET NUMBER NIA j·· JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
  32. 32. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1-1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 3f!i~., (dl;. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT !.~.t_l ~h _,:; FOR THE EASTERN DISTRlCT,:OF-PENNSYLVANIA- DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to inli!cat.e the category o 8 £the~case for the purpose ofassignment to appropriate calendar. 1 D , .:4 Address of Plaintitl': Department ofJustice, Criminal Division. Asset Fmfeiture and Monev Laundering Section, 1400 New York Avenue NW. Washington D.C. 20530 Address of Defendant: PIDC Regional Center, LP XXCI, 1500 Market Street, 2600 Centre Square West Philadelphia, PA 19102 Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: !...P....hi:!'la~d~e:.:.~IPch:!'ia,..._,P_,A_,____--:---:-----:-:---:---------- (lJse Reverse Side for Additional Space) Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporatioo and any publicly held corpo wning I0% or more of its stock? (Attach two copies ofthe Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 (a)) Yes o Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? Yes o RELATED CAS£, IF ANY: Case Number:______.N_,I;.:..A...______ Judgc:._____.N""'/""'A,__________ Date Terminated:_...._.,...'--"-'""''-'--------- Civil cases arc deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions: I. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yes o No X 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the swne transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yes o No X 3. Docs this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one :year previously terminated action in this court? Yes o No X 4. Is this case a second or successive habem; corpus, social security appeal, or prose civil rights case filed by the same individual? Yes o No X CIVIL: (Place ONE CATEGORY ONLY) A Federal Question Cases: B. Diwrsity Jurisdiction Cases: I. o Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contmcls I. o Insurance Contract and Other Contracts 2. o FELA 2. o Airplane Personal Injury 3. o Jones Act-Personal Injury 3. o Assault, Defamation 4. o Antitrust 4. o Marine Personal Injury 5. o Patent 5. o Motor Vehicle Personal Injury 6. o Labor-Management Relations 6. o Other Personal Injury (Please specify) 7. o Civil Rights 7. o Products Liabilil)' 8. o Habeas Corpus 8. o Products Liability- Asbestos 9. ecuritics Act(s) Cases 9. o All other Diversity Cases I0. So ial Security Review Cases (Please specify)-------------- II. AI other Federal Question Cases (P ease specify) Asset Forfeiture ARBITRATION CERTIFJCATION (Check Appropriate Category) ---.,,-----"D""'c""ll""a""S;.:.en'""t""'il""le,s'------------'-counsel of record do hereby certify: o ursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2. Section J(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief. the dwnagcs recoverable in lhis civil action case exceed tl1c sum of $ ·o.OOO.OO exclusive of iracrcst and costs; icfother th111 monetary dumagcs 15 sought. ~w ' Attomcy UH NOTE: A trial de novo will be u trill by JUry only iflh.:rc has been compliance with FJtC.P. 38. I certify that, to my knowledge, tbc within cnse is nol rehued to nny rase now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court except ns noted nbove. D."TE: February 18. 20IS 24083827 (TX) Attomey I.D.# CIV. 609 (5/2012}
  33. 33. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 1-1 Filed 02/18/15 Page 3 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST HELD IN THE NAME OF OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF SANG AH PARK IN THE PHILADELPHIA U.S. IMMIGRATION FUND, Defendant. 15 CIVIL ACTION NO: In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on ali defendants. (See § 1:03 ofthe plan set forth on the reverse side of this tbrm.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Fonn specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS: (a) Habeas Corpus- Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through § 2255. (b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. {c) Arbitration- Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. (d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos. (e) Special Management- Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.) (f) Standard Management - Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. 02/18/2014 Date 202-514~ 1263 Telephone (Ci·. 660) 10/02 202-514-9155 FAX Number United States of America Attorney for della.sentilles@usdoj.gov E-Mail Address ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
  34. 34. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Whereas this civil forfeiture action (the "California Action") was filed on April against the defendant in funds held at Uniti Bank ("Defendant Funds"). Jae Yong Chun, Sang Ah Park, Yoon Yang Ja, and the Port Manleigh Trust "Claimants") claim an interest in the Defendant Funds. No other parties other than Claimants have appeared this case and for filing statements of interest and answers has expired. The Funds are in the custody and control of the United States Marshal Service. Whereas on February the United States filed a Verified Complaint seeking forfeiture in United States v. A Limited Partnership (Case No. in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Action"). In the Action, the United States seeks to forfeit a limited partnership interest in the Philadelphia U.S. Immigration Fund (the "Defendant Security"), which is described more fully in the United States' Complaint for Forfeiture Jn Rem filed in Pennsylvania Action under § 98L Whereas Plaintiff, the United States of America, and Claimants Jae Yong Chun, Sang Ah Park, Yoon Ja, and the Port Manleigh Trust, enter into this Settlement Agreement is dispositive of the California and Pennsylvania Actions, the terms of which are as follows.
  35. 35. Claimants, jointly and individually, and the States consent to the entry of a Consent judgment of Forfeiture ("Forfeiture Judgment") in the California Action and agree to take all reasonable steps necessary to execute its terms. 2. Subject to the terms of this Settlement Agreement and the Forfeiture Judgment, the Defendant Funds will be provided to Claimants through their counsel. Counsel shall provide any and all information to the United States needed to process the distribution of these funds according to federal law. funds shall be distributed pursuant to this Paragraph prior to April 27, 3. Except as provided for Paragraph 2 of this Settlement Agreement and the Forfeiture Judgment, the States of America shall have judgment as to the Defendant Funds and all interest earned on the entirety of the Defendant Funds since seizure, and no other person or entity shall have any right, title or interest The United States agrees to dispose of said funds in accordance with law. Except as provided for in Paragraph 2, all right, title, and interest of Claimants, and all other potential claimants, in the Defendant Funds is hereby condemned and forfeited to the United States of America.
  36. 36. and individually, also consent to the forfeiture of the Defendant Security the Action. Claimants shall not take any action, including filing a claim, appeal or other legal of any type, to challenge, prevent, frustrate or delay the forfeiture or disposition of the Defendant Security in the Pennsylvania Action. 5. Except as provided for in Paragraph 2 of this Settlement Agreement, Claimants shall also not file any further claims, appeals or other legal actions of type to challenge, prevent, frustrate or the forfeiture or disposition the Defendant Funds in the California Action. 6. In the event Claimant Ah Park files with the United States Department of State ("DOS") an Application to Determine Returning Resident Status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. (a)(27)(A), a provision governing U.S. permanent residents returning from an extended visit abroad, the Parties agree that the Department of Justice will not oppose or seek to obtain the denial of such an application if is filed within two years of the of this Settlement Agreement. However, if requested by DOS, the Department of Justice may to inquiries from DOS and provide information to DOS, including copies of the pleadings filed in the and Pennsylvania Actions, in connection Claimant Sang Ah Park's visa
  37. 37. 7. The United States has confirmed to Claimants' that as of the below date, Claimant Sang Ah Park is not the subject of any immigration proceedings United States. 8. Counsel for the United States has recommended to the appropriate officials that, where practicable and consistent with law, and after deducting the United case-related costs and expenses, the net forfeited funds and assets in both the California and Pennsylvania Actions be transferred to the Republic of Korea. 9. The Parties agree this Settlement Agreement is upon there being no claim filed to the Defendant Security in the Pennsylvania Action. In the a claim is filed by a person or entity other than Claimants with respect to the Defendant Security in the Pennsylvania Action, the provisions set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement will be stayed until a final judgment is entered and any appeals are exhausted in the Pennsylvania Action. Furthermore, if a claim is filed in the Pennsylvania Action, Claimants, jointly and individually, agree to cooperate with the United States in obtaining and providing to the United States and any testimony needed relevant to the claims at issue in the Pennsylvania Action.
  38. 38. Claimants, jointly and individually, hereby waive time limits set forth in § 983 and any claim to further notice of forfeiture for any of the Defendant Funds or the Defendant Security. The Parties agree the of this matter upon the terms and conditions set forth the Settlement Agreement shall be the final and complete satisfaction of the claims asserted by both the United States and Claimants in the California Action. Claimants, jointly and individually, specifically waive any rights to further litigate against the United States its interest in the Funds or to petition for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture of the Defendant Funds. Claimants, jointly and individually, expressly waive any right to seek from the United States release or of any of the Defendant Funds the United States may transfer to the Government of the Republic of Korea. 13. jointly and individually, and their employees, heirs, representatives, agents, assignees, and attorneys, hereby agree to forever discharge and hold harmless the United States, and any and officers, agents, representatives, attorneys, and employees of same, including all federal, state, local enforcement officers, from all claims, liabilities, obligations, appeals, or demands, including attorney's fees, in connection
  39. 39. with or arising from the California Action and the Pennsylvania Action. Claimants, jointly and individually, understand that they are forever barred from asserting any claims against the United States, its agents, employees or assigns, including the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney's Office for the Central of California, the United States Department of Justice, and any of their agents, employees, or assigns, in with, or arising from, the California Action and the Pennsylvania Action. 14. Except as otherwise provided for in this Settlement Agreement, the United States and Claimants specifically waive any rights to further litigate each other their respective interests in the Defendant Assets at issue in the California Action. The Parties acknowledge that notice of the California Action has been given in accordance with law. Other than Claimants, who have denied the allegations in the California Action, the Parties acknowledge that all other potential claimants deemed to have admitted the United States' allegations in the Action. 16. Upon entry of the Forfeiture Judgment by the Court, the Forfeiture shall constitute the final judgment between and among the United States and 6
  40. 40. Each agrees to cooperate with the other Party and to perform the further acts required by this Settlement Agreement, to execute and deliver any and all further documents that be necessary or desirable to effectuate the purposes of this Settlement Agreement, including facilitating the entry of a Forfeiture Judgment, and to refrain or forbear from any act that would be inconsistent with the purposes of this Settlement Agreement. As it pertains to this Settlement and related Forfeiture Judgment, all rights of appeal are hereby waived by all Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties do not waive their rights to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement, which rights are expressly retained. The Parties acknowledge that they are, and have been, represented by competent counsel in connection with the negotiation, preparation, and execution of this agreement and the legal effects thereof have been explained to them, and that they are entering into this agreement freely and voluntarily, without coercion, duress or undue influence. 20. Except as provided for in Paragraph 2 of this Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to bear their own costs and attorney's fees related in any way to the California Action and the Pennsylvania Action. Claimants
  41. 41. further agree that they have not substantially prevailed in the California Action for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § Nothing contained in this Settlement Agreement shall constitute admission of liability or fault on the part of Claimants, who expressly deny any fault, liability, or wrongdoing. The parties to this Settlement Agreement are into it solely for the purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation. 22. This Agreement is entered into by the parties in full and final settlement of any and all claims, demands, and/or liens related to the seizure of the Defendant Property. The United States and the their agents, subrogees, successors, and assigns, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to this compromise settlement: of the above-captioned forfeiture matter upon the terms and conditions set forth above. There shall be no modification of this Settlement Agreement unless in writing and signed by all the undersigned Parties or their authorized representatives.
  42. 42. Date: Date: M. DAY, Acting Chief ASSET AND MONEY LAUNDERING SECTION, to By: S. LEE, Senior Attorney DELLA SENTILLES, Trial Attorney Criminal Division Attorneys for the Plaintiff United States of America Jae Yong Chun Claimant Date: By: Sang Claimant Date: By: Date: By: Claimant Yoon Trustee, The Port Manleigh Trust Claimant
  43. 43. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 8 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 4 Ga~e 2:15 eo· 00014 AB Doeumef'lt 7 1 Fileel 06l04115 Pa~e 1 of~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT/ FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST HELD IN THE NAME OF OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF SANG AH PARK IN THE PHILADELPHIA U.S. IMMIGRATION FUND, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION No. 15-CV-814 AMENDED DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND NOW, this~ day off--11----'--=:_;:,_____, 2015, this matter having come before the Court on the government's mo IOn pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and 58(a) and (b) for entry of a default judgment and a final order of forfeiture (ECF No.4) regarding the defendant security, and, after a hearing, the Court finds the following: WHEREAS, on February 18, 2015, the United States commenced this action by tiling a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem pursuant to Rule G(2) ofthe Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The Complaint alleges that the defendant security is subject to forfeiture to the United States of America pursuant to · 18 U.S.C. §§ 98l(a)(l)(A) and (C); and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(2)(a), the Complaint was properly verified by Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Geoffrey I. Gordon; and
  44. 44. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 8 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 4 &ise 2.15-cv-00814-AB Doeumel"'t 7 1 Fileel 06/04/15 Pa~e 2 ef 4 WHEREAS, the Complaint sets forth the grounds for this Court's jurisdiction over this forfeiture action, in rem jurisdiction over the defendant security, and venue in accordance with Supplemental Rule G(2)(b); and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(2)(c), the Complaint describes the defendant security with reasonable particularity, stating that the defendant security is a limited partnership interest held in the name of or for the benefit of Sang Ah Park in the U.S. Immigration Fund. This fund is created and/or overseen by PIDC Regional Center, LP XXVI, a Pennsylvania entity, and the defendant security is more particularly identified in PIDC's books and records as "Partner Number 116"; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(2)(t), the Complaint states sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the United States will be able to meet its burden ofproof at trial; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(3)(b)(ii), on February 18, 2015, the Court issued an arrest warrant in rem against the defendant security that was predicated on a showing of probable cause that the defendant security is subject to forfeiture to the United States; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(3)(c), on February 27, 2015, Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Geoffrey I. Gordon duly served and executed a warrant of arrest in rem upon the defendant security; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C), the United States provided constructive notice to potential claimants by posting a notice on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days beginning on February 21, 2015; and -2-
  45. 45. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 8 Filed 06/05/15 Page 3 of 4 ease 2:15 ev 00014 AB Deeumef'lt 7·1 Filed 06/04/15 Pa~e 3 ef 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(4)(b), on March 3, 2015, the United States also provided direct notice of this forfeiture action to known potential claimants, in particular, Sang Ah Park and Jae Yong Chun, through their counsel, Covington and Burling, LLP. This notice informed them ofthe forfeiture action and included copies of a Notice of Complaint for Forfeiture and the Complaint; and WHEREAS, the time for the filing of any claim to contest this forfeiture has expired and no person or entity as of the below date has either filed a claim or answer to the Complaint, or has otherwise appeared or answered in this regard; and WHEREAS, upon the request of the United States pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), on April 24, 2015, the Clerk of Court entered default against the defendant security and all persons claiming an interest in the defendant security for failure to file a timely claim, answer, or otherwise defend this action after having been provided notice under the Supplemental Rules (ECF No. 3); and WHEREAS, upon consideration ofthe United States' motion for entry of a Default Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), and a Final Order of Forfeiture, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58(a) and (b), and after a hearing to consider the motion, and no party claiming an interest in the defendant security having appeared at the hearing or otherwise answered or defended in this action, for good cause shown, the Court concludes that it should grant the United States' motion. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 1. The United States' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Final Order of Forfeiture (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. - 3-
  46. 46. Case 2:15-cv-00814-AB Document 8 Filed 06/05/15 Page 4 of 4 Oase 2.15 ev 80814 AB Doeul'l'lent 7 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 4 of 4 2. All right, title, and interest of all persons, including Sang Ah Park, Jae Yong Chun, and their heirs and assigns, in the defendant security, a limited partnership interest held in the name of or for the benefit of Sang Ah Park in the Philadelphia U.S. Immigration Fund, more particularly identified in PIDC's books and records as "Partner Number 116," is hereby fully and finally forfeited to the United States of America pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(l )(A) and (C). The United States of America shall have judgment as to the defendant security and no other person or entity shall have any right, title, or interest in the defendant security. 3. The United States shall dispose of the forfeited property in accordance with law. 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide three certified copies of this Order to counsel for the United States of America (Attn: Joseph F. Minni, Assistant U.S. Attorney and WooS. Lee, Senior Trial Attorney). HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY United States District Judge -4-

×