UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $909,708.64 IN U.S. CURRENCY, SEIZED FROM A SUBLEDGER AT CITIBANK, N.A. PREVIOUSLY HELD IN ACCOUNT ENDING IN 7108, IN THE NAME OF NTGH 2A AUTO TRADE, INC, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:23CV559
)
$909,708.64 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 	)
SEIZED FROM A SUBLEDGER AT 	)
CITIBANK, N.A., PREVIOUSLY HELD 	)
IN ACCOUNT ENDING IN 7108, IN 	)
THE NAME OF NTGH 2A AUTO TRADE 	)
INC., LLC, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, 	District Judge.
This forfeiture action is before the court on Plaintiff United
States of America’s motion for summary judgment. 	(Doc. 65.) 	The
motion is opposed by NTGH 2A Auto Trade, Inc. (“NTGH”), a claimant
to the defendant currency. 	The 	motion has been fully briefed and
is 	ready 	for 	resolution. 	(Docs. 	66, 	69, 	71.) 	For 	the 	reasons
stated below, the motion will be granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The 	United 	States 	seeks 	civil 	forfeiture 	of 	the 	defendant
$909,708.64 in U.S. currency, which was seized from a subledger at
CitiBank, N.A. 	The defendant funds were previously located in an
account at CitiBank held by NTGH (the “NTGH Account”). 	Viewed in
the 	light 	most 	favorable 	to 	NTGH 	as 	the 	non-movant, 	the 	relevant
Case 1:23-cv-00559-TDS-JLW Document 76 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 8

2
facts 	are 	as 	follows: 	In 	September 	of 	2022, 	an 	individual 	named
Timothy 	Koob 	sent 	a 	series 	of 	wire 	transfers 	totaling 	$1,695,000
in 	funds 	fraudulently 	obtained 	from 	J.G. 	Beef 	Sales 	Inc. 	(“J.G.
Beef”)1 out of his personal Wells Fargo account and into the NTGH
Account. 	(Doc. 	1-1 	¶¶ 	10-12; 	Doc. 	7.) 	Of 	the 	total 	amount 	wired
into the NTGH account, $909,708 was transferred to a ledger in the
custody 	of 	Citibank, 	N.A., 	and 	subsequently 	seized 	by 	the 	United
States 	Secret 	Service 	pursuant 	to 	a 	warrant 	on 	March 	17, 	2023.
(Doc. 	1-1 	¶¶ 	12, 	25.) 	On 	July 	7, 	2023, 	the 	United 	States 	filed
this 	action 	seeking 	forfeiture. 	(Doc. 	1.) 	The 	United 	States
alleges, 	and 	NTGH 	does 	not 	dispute, 	that 	the 	defendant 	currency
constitutes 	or 	was 	derived 	from 	the 	proceeds 	of 	a 	criminal 	wire-
fraud scheme. 	( Id. ¶ 1; Doc. 69 at 2-3.)
II. 	ANALYSIS
A. 	Legal Standard
Summary 	judgment 	is 	appropriate 	“if 	the 	movant 	shows 	that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is 	entitled 	to 	judgment 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
56(a). 	A genuine dispute of material fact exists “‘if the evidence
is 	such 	that 	a 	reasonable 	jury 	could 	return 	a 	verdict 	for 	the
nonmoving party.’” 	Basnight v. Diamond Devs., Inc., 146 F. Supp.
1 There is no dispute that fraudsters intercepted emails from J.G. Beef,
redirecting payment to themselves for beef ordered by J.G. Beef from a
third party. 	Fraudsters used Koob and his bank account as the conduit
for transferring the fraudulently-obtained funds.
Case 1:23-cv-00559-TDS-JLW Document 76 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 8

3
2d 	754, 	760 	(M.D.N.C. 	2001) 	(quoting 	Anderson 	v. 	Liberty 	Lobby,
Inc., 	477 	U.S. 	242, 	248 	(1986)). 	In 	determining 	a 	motion 	for
summary judgment, the court views the “evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, according that party the benefit
of 	all 	reasonable 	inferences.” 	Id. 	Summary 	judgment 	should 	be
denied 	“unless 	the 	entire 	record 	shows 	a 	right 	to 	judgment 	with
such 	clarity 	as 	to 	leave 	no 	room 	for 	controversy 	and 	establishes
affirmatively 	that 	the 	adverse 	party 	cannot 	prevail 	under 	any
circumstances.” 	Guessford v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 983 F.
Supp. 	2d 	652, 	659 	(M.D.N.C. 	2013) 	(quoting 	Campbell 	v. 	Hewitt,
Coleman & Assocs., Inc., 21 F.3d 52, 55 (4th Cir. 1994)).
While 	the 	movant 	bears 	the 	initial 	burden 	of 	demonstrating
the 	absence 	of 	a 	genuine 	issue 	of 	material 	fact, 	once 	that 	has
been 	met, 	the 	non-moving 	party 	bears 	the 	burden 	of 	showing 	that
such an issue does exist. 	Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Football Club,
Inc., 	346 	F.3d 	514, 	522 	(4th 	Cir. 	2003); 	Matsushita 	Elec. 	Indus.
Co., 	Ltd. 	v. 	Zenith 	Radio 	Corp., 	475 	U.S. 	574, 	586–87 	(1986). 	A
mere 	scintilla 	of 	evidence 	is 	insufficient 	to 	circumvent 	summary
judgment. 	Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d
303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he nonmoving party must rely on more
than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one
inference 	upon 	another, 	or 	the 	mere 	existence 	of 	a 	scintilla 	of
evidence.”); see also Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co., 818 F.2d 1126,
1128 (4th Cir. 1987) (noting that there is an affirmative duty for
Case 1:23-cv-00559-TDS-JLW Document 76 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 8

4
“the 	trial 	judge 	to 	prevent 	factually 	unsupported 	claims 	and
defenses 	from 	proceeding 	to 	trial” 	(internal 	quotation 	marks
omitted)). 	Instead, 	the 	nonmoving 	party 	must 	convince 	the 	court
that, 	upon 	the 	record 	taken 	as 	a 	whole, 	a 	rational 	trier 	of 	fact
could 	find 	for 	the 	nonmoving 	party. 	Anderson, 	477 	U.S. 	at 	248–
49. 	Trial is unnecessary only if “the facts are undisputed, or if
disputed, 	the 	dispute 	is 	of 	no 	consequence 	to 	the 	dispositive
question.” 	Mitchell 	v. 	Data 	Gen. 	Corp., 	12 	F.3d 	1310, 	1315–16
(4th Cir. 1993).
B. 	Motion for Summary Judgment
The 	United 	States 	contends 	that 	the 	defendant 	currency 	is
subject 	to 	forfeiture 	under 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	981(a)(1)(A) 	as 	property
involved 	in 	actual 	or 	attempted 	money 	laundering 	transactions 	in
violation 	of 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1956, 	or 	property 	traceable 	to 	such
property, 	and 	under 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	981(a)(1)(C) 	as 	property
constituting or derived from the proceeds of “specialized unlawful
activity” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), namely wire fraud
in 	violation 	of 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1343. 	(Doc. 	66 	at 	2-3.) 	NTGH 	does
not dispute the United States’s account of the wire fraud scheme.
(Doc. 	69 	at 	2-3.) 	Instead, 	NTGH 	argues 	that 	it 	is 	an 	“innocent
owner” of the defendant currency. 	(Doc. 69 at 7-13.) 	The United
States replies that NTGH’s argument that it is an “innocent owner”
is factually and legally erroneous, and moreover that the evidence
Case 1:23-cv-00559-TDS-JLW Document 76 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 8

5
NTGH offers in support of its argument is inadmissible.2 	(Doc. 71
at 1-7.)
To establish an existing interest as an innocent owner under
18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	983, 	a 	claimant 	must 	show 	by 	a 	preponderance 	of 	the
evidence that he is “an owner who (i) did not know of the conduct
giving 	rise 	to 	forfeiture; 	or 	(ii) 	upon 	learning 	of 	the 	conduct
giving 	rise 	to 	the 	forfeiture, 	did 	all 	that 	reasonably 	could 	be
expected 	under 	the 	circumstances 	to 	terminate 	such 	use 	of 	the
property.” 	18 U.S.C. 983(d)(2)(A). 	The United States argues that
NTGH cannot meet this burden because it cannot show that it has an
ownership 	interest 	in 	the 	defendant 	currency. 	(Doc. 	66 	at 	13.)
NTGH 	responds 	that 	it 	has 	an 	ownership 	interest 	in 	the 	defendant
currency 	because 	it 	had 	a 	balance 	of 	$36,111.58 	in 	its 	account
prior to the receipt of fraud proceeds (Doc. 69 at 8), because it
was acting as a bailee of what it believed to be legitimate funds
on 	behalf 	of 	a 	group 	of 	African 	businessmen 	(id. 	at 	8-13), 	and
because it was owed a 5-10% fee for facilitating the businessmen’s
transaction (id. at 8).
Even 	assuming 	that 	the 	supporting 	evidence 	NTGH 	offers 	is
admissible 	and 	these 	facts 	are 	true, 	NTGH 	has 	not 	met 	its 	burden
to 	show 	an 	ownership 	interest 	in 	the 	defendant 	currency 	by 	a
2 	As the United States notes, the contested evidence is immaterial to
the disposition of the present motion. 	(Doc. 71 at 4.) 	Thus, the court
need not reach the question of its admissibility.
Case 1:23-cv-00559-TDS-JLW Document 76 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 8

6
preponderance 	of 	the 	evidence. 	NTGH 	has 	already 	conceded 	that
$1,695,000 	in 	fraud 	proceeds 	were 	wired 	into 	its 	account 	in
September 	of 	2022. 	(See 	Doc 	69 	at 	3 	(“Plaintiff’s 	recitation 	of
facts as to the alleged “wire fraud” scheme are uncontroverted and
largely 	irrelevant 	to 	the 	question 	before 	the 	Court.”).) 	This
fact, 	which 	NTGH 	dismisses 	as 	“largely 	irrelevant,” 	establishes
dispositively 	that 	NTGH 	was 	not 	the 	owner 	of 	the 	defendant
currency. 	Id. 	Section 	983(d) 	defines 	“owner” 	as 	“a 	person 	with
an 	ownership 	interest 	in 	the 	specific 	property 	sought 	to 	be
forfeited[.]” 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	983(d). 	Here, 	the 	specific 	property
subject 	to 	forfeiture 	is 	the 	$1,695,000 	in 	fraud 	proceeds 	that
were 	wired 	into 	the 	NTGH 	account. 	NTGH 	cannot 	simultaneously
concede 	that 	the 	defendant 	currency 	was 	fraudulently 	stolen 	from
J.G. Beef and claim to be its rightful owner.3
Further, 	as 	the 	United 	States 	notes, 	the 	law 	does 	not
3 	NTGH 	relies 	on 	the 	statutory 	definition 	of 	“owner,” 	which 	it 	argues
“does 	not 	include 	– 	a 	bailee 	unless 	the 	bailor 	is 	identified 	and 	the
bailee 	shows 	a 	colorable 	legitimate 	interest 	in 	the 	property 	seized,”
citing 	18 	USC 	§ 	983(d)(6). 	(Doc. 	69 	at 	8-9 	(emphasis 	in 	original).)
NTGH 	names 	several 	African 	businessmen 	as 	the 	“identified 	bailors,”
although that evidence is disputed, and cites various New York and North
Carolina state law cases to argue that it fits the state-law definition
of 	a 	bailee. 	(See 	id. 	at 	9-12.) 	But 	this 	is 	all 	beside 	the 	point,
because NTGH has admitted that the proceeds were a result of fraud, and
thus neither the alleged bailors nor NTGH can have a colorable legitimate
interest in the property seized. 	Moreover, even the deposition of Ayoubu
Hassimoou 	Adam, 	the 	owner 	of 	NTGH, 	reveals 	that 	the 	NTGH’s 	alleged
legitimate clients “work with some people who work with Koob, and Koob
deposited the money into the [Citibank] account.” 	(Doc. 69-3 at 11, 28,
45.) 	Apparently, 	NTGH 	is 	relying 	on 	the 	fact 	that 	it 	obtained 	an
affidavit 	from 	Koob 	stating 	that 	the 	funds 	were 	not 	the 	result 	of
criminal activity (Doc. 69-8); but of course this is false, as NTGH now
concedes.
Case 1:23-cv-00559-TDS-JLW Document 76 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 8

7
distinguish between the fraud proceeds wired into the NTGH Account
and other funds located in the same account. 	(Doc 71 at 3 (citing
United States v. All Funds Presently on Deposit or Attempted to be
Deposited in any Accts. Maintained at Am. Exp. Bank, 832 F. Supp.
542, 	556-64 	(E.D.N.Y. 	1993)).) 	Section 	984 	of 	the 	forfeiture
statute provides:
(a)(1) 	In 	any 	forfeiture 	action 	in 	rem 	in 	which 	the
subject 	property 	is 	. 	. 	. 	funds 	deposited 	in 	an
account in a financial institution . . .
(A) 	it 	shall 	not 	be 	necessary 	for 	the
Government 	to 	identify 	the 	specific 	property
involved in the offense that is the basis for
the forfeiture; and
(B)it shall not be a defense that the property
involved 	in 	such 	an 	offense 	has 	been 	removed
and replaced by identical property.
(2) 	Except 	as 	provided 	in 	subsection 	(b), 	any
identical 	property 	found 	in 	the 	same 	place 	or
account 	as 	the 	property 	involved 	in 	the 	offense
that 	is 	the 	basis 	for 	the 	forfeiture 	shall 	be
subject to forfeiture under this section.
(b) 	No 	action 	pursuant 	to 	this 	section 	to 	forfeit
property 	not 	traceable 	directly 	to 	the 	offense 	that 	is
the basis for the forfeiture may be commenced more than
1 year from the date of the offense.
18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	984. 	Here 	the 	United 	States 	brought 	this 	action 	on
July 7, 2023, within the one year allotted under § 984(b). 	(Doc.
1.) 	Thus, 	up 	to 	$1,695,000 	of 	the 	currency 	seized 	from 	the 	NTGH
account is subject to forfeiture, regardless of whether it can be
traced 	directly 	to 	the 	original 	fraud 	proceeds. 	Because 	only
$909,708.64 	remained 	in 	the 	account 	at 	the 	time 	of 	seizure, 	the
Case 1:23-cv-00559-TDS-JLW Document 76 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 8

8
entire 	amount 	is 	subject 	to 	forfeiture. 	The 	United 	States 	does
not need to distinguish the forfeited currency from the $36,111.58
in identical currency held in the account prior to the receipt of
fraud 	proceeds, 	nor 	from 	any 	other 	identical 	currency 	in 	which
NTGH claims an interest.
In sum, the undisputed material facts show that the defendant
$909,708.64 	constitutes 	or 	is 	derived 	from 	fraud 	proceeds 	and 	is
thus subject to forfeiture as a matter of law.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff United States of America’s motion
for summary judgment (Doc. 65) is GRANTED and the claim of NTGH 2A
Auto Trade Inc. (Doc. 22) is DENIED.
IT 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	AND 	DECREED 	that 	the 	defendant
$909,708.64, 	seized 	from 	the 	subledger 	at 	Citibank, 	N.A.,
previously 	held 	in 	account 	ending 	in 	7108 	in 	the 	name 	of 	NTGH 	2A
Auto Trade, Inc, LLC, is FORFEITED to the United States.
/s/ 	Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
January 12, 2026
Case 1:23-cv-00559-TDS-JLW Document 76 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 8