United States v. 144,774 Pounds of Blue King Crab

Good Law
410 F.3d 1131·2005 WL 1355511
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 200503-36006California2,309 words

Opinion

Opinion

Silverman, J.

King crab taken in violation of Russian fishing regulations is subject to forfeiture under the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3374 (a), on a strict liability basis. The question before us is whether an importer of such crab may assert an “innocent owner defense” in forfeiture proceedings. Under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 983 , the innocent owner defense cannot be asserted when the property to be forfeited is “contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess.”

We hold today that if the crab at issue here was imported, received, or acquired in violation of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372 (a), it constitutes “property that it is illegal to possess” for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 983 (d)(4).

I. Background

This interlocutory appeal arises out of a claim to king crab made by appellants Deep Sea Fisheries and Deep Sea Harvester (collectively, “Deep Sea”). The king crab at issue was caught within the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”) by two Russian vessels, the F/V Deep Sea Harvester and the F/V Lucky Star. The crab was transferred to the M/V Vlada, a Russian transport ship, which transported the crab out of the EEZ to Vancouver, B.C. Deep Sea imported…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.