USA v. $144,638.00 In United States Currency

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
$144,638.00 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
Defendant in rem.
Case No. 24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP
ORDER GRANTING THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
In March 2024, the United States of America initiated this proceeding aimed
at forfeiting $144,638.00 (“the Currency”) seized from the residence of Frank
Gonzales (Gonzales) during the January 2023 execution of a search warrant. 	The
United States now moves for summary judgment, arguing that the Currency
constitutes “proceeds of drug trafficking” and, thus, is subject to forfeiture under
applicable law. 	In support, the Government presents an unopposed concise
statement of facts establishing Gonzales dealing drugs from his residence; the
Currency, a scale, and Ziploc bags found in Gonzales’ bedroom; and drugs found
in a toilet and a car on the property. 	The Government also relies, in part, on text
messages purportedly sent from a cellular telephone belonging to Gonzales and
which further describe his drug activities.
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

2
For his part, Gonzales claims the Currency was “lawfully earned”,
representing a “portion of his life savings as well as to meet his financial obligation
to his children.” 	He does not address, however, the Government’s concise
statement of facts, beyond challenging the Government’s reliance on text messages
in support of its motion.
Upon review, the unopposed facts reflect that the United States has more
than carried its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Currency constitutes proceeds of drug trafficking and is, thus, subject to forfeiture.
Those facts demonstrate that Gonzales dealt drugs from his bedroom, the Currency
and a catalogue of drug paraphernalia were found in the same bedroom, and more
drugs were found in or around Gonzales’ residence. 	In contrast, Gonzales has
presented no evidence that the Currency was obtained from a legitimate source, as
he claims. 	As for the text messages Gonzales disputes, even if ignored, they do
not materially alter the evidentiary imbalance. 	As a result, for the reasons
discussed further below, the motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 78, is
GRANTED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a party is entitled to
summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

3
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 	In
particular, the movant’s “initial responsibility” is to inform the district court of the
basis for its motion and to identify those parts of the record “which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” 	Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 	When the movant bears the burden of proof,
“it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if
the evidence went uncontroverted….” 	Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536
(9th Cir. 1992). 	This means that the movant “must establish beyond controversy
every essential element” of its claim. 	See S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana,
336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). 	In assessing a motion for
summary judgment, all facts are construed in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party. 	Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 636 (9th Cir. 2005).
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 15, 2024, the United States filed a Forfeiture Complaint against
the Currency, i.e., $144,638.00 in U.S. currency, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Section
881(a)(6). 	Dkt. No. 1. 	Therein, the Government alleged that the Currency was
subject to forfeiture as “moneys” furnished in exchange for a controlled substance,
“proceeds” of such an exchange, and/or “moneys” used to facilitate a violation of
federal law. 	More specifically, the Government alleged that the Currency was
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

4
seized from Gonzales’ bedroom following execution of a search warrant on his
residence, along with pounds of methamphetamine, a scale, money counter, Ziploc
bags, and a black iPhone.
On September 12, 2024, Gonzales answered the Complaint, alleging that he
“lawfully earned and held the $144,638.00 as a portion of his life savings as well
as to meet his financial obligation to his children.” 	Dkt. No. 29 at 1. 	Gonzales
further alleged that the Currency represented “the entirety of his lawfully earned
wages” and did not represent “the result of any illegal activities.” 	Id.
On November 21, 2025, the United States filed the pending motion for
summary judgment, seeking forfeiture of the Currency. 	Dkt. No. 78. 	The United
States also filed a concise statement of facts, along with numerous exhibits and
declarations, in support of the motion. 	Dkt. No. 79. 	The Government argues that
it is entitled to forfeiture because the facts show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the Currency constitutes “proceeds of drug trafficking” under
Section 881(a)(6).
After the Court initially scheduled the motion for summary judgment for
hearing on January 9, 2026, Gonzales’ response to the motion was due on or before
December 19, 2025. 	See LR7.2. 	On November 28, 2025, Gonzales filed an
untitled “Trulincs” email with a Subject line of “Discovery”. 	Dkt. No. 81.
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

5
Liberally construed, the email states that Gonzales earned the following income: in
2004, roughly $14,800; in 2005, roughly $12,600; in 2006, roughly $4,500; in
2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, $28,000 in each year from “Tacos & More Mexican
Restaurant”; in 2020, 2021, and 2022, $26,000 in each year as “security for
parking lot”; in 2017, $35,000 in “gambling winning”; in 2018, $20,000 in
“gambling winning”; in 2019, $9,000 in “gambling winning”; in 2021, $12,000 in
“gambling winning”; and, in 2022, $6,000 in “gambling winning”. 	Id. at 1-3.
Also attached to the email were copies of two checks dated September 28, 2022 in
the amounts of $12,809 and $2,178, respectively, with Gonzales as the payee and
“The Caregiver Foundation” as the payor. 	Id. at 9-10.
On December 1, 2025, Gonzales filed a “response in opposition to the
Government’s attempt to introduce text messages recovered from his phone and
certain recordings.” 	Dkt. No. 82 at 1. 	Therein, Gonzales asserts that the
Government’s purported “motion to introduce text messages” should be denied due
to an “outstanding Court order” allegedly denying a “motion in limine seeking to
admit text messages recovered from Gonzales’s phone and certain recordings.”
Id. at 1, 4.
After an apparent delay in Gonzales receiving a copy of the motion for
summary judgment, see Dkt. Nos. 83, 86, the Court extended the time for Gonzales
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 5 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

6
to respond to the motion to January 9, 2026, and vacated the hearing on the same
date, Dkt. No. 87. 	Gonzales did not file a response by the extended deadline.
Instead, on January 30, 2026, Gonzales filed an opposition to the motion for
summary judgment. 	Dkt. No. 91. 	Therein, Gonzales contends that the
Government’s “entire civil forfeiture case relies upon the alleged text messages
and the inadmissible declaration of a federal agent.” 	Id. at 5. 	He asserts that the
text messages have been “previously rejected by this Court” and the Government
has “not met its burden to establish that the alleged text messages were actually
sent from the phone owned by Mr. Gonzales….” 	Id. at 5-6. 	According to
Gonzales, therefore, a genuine dispute of material fact exists, precluding summary
judgment. 	Id. at 6. 	Gonzales filed nothing else, such as a concise statement of
facts in opposition to the Government’s version.
After requesting and receiving time to reply to Gonzales’ tardy opposition,
Dkt. Nos. 92-93, the Government filed a reply on February 20, 2026, Dkt. No. 94.
Therein, the Government argues that the “text messages” are admissible and
should be considered. 	Id. at 6-11. 	The Government also asserts that, even if not
considered, there is “sufficient” other evidence linking the Currency to drug
trafficking. 	Id. at 11-12. 	On March 2, 2026, Gonzales moved to have his
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 6 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

7
January 30, 2026 opposition considered timely filed, which the Court granted.
Dkt. Nos. 95, 98. 	Now, with briefing complete, this Order follows.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As mentioned, Gonzales has not filed a concise statement of facts in
opposition to the United States’ concise statement of facts, as required by Local
Rule 56.1(e). 	Nonetheless, the Court has independently reviewed the United
States’ concise statement to ensure that the facts it contains are supported by
material in the record, as required by Local Rule 56.1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(c)(1). 	Having done so, the material submitted in connection with
the instant motion for summary judgment reflects the following.
In late December 2022, a confidential source (CS) informed Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent Michael Lesko (SA Lesko) that
Gonzales was a fentanyl and methamphetamine distributor operating in the area of
Waianae, O‘ahu. 	Decl. of Michael Lesko at ¶¶ 1, 6 (Lesko Declaration), Dkt. No.
79-8. 	On or about January 26, 2023, the CS conducted a controlled purchase from
Gonzales of 50 grams of fentanyl and a half-pound of methamphetamine for a
combined total of $5,700. 	Id. at ¶ 7. 	This controlled purchase took place in
Gonzales’ bedroom at his residence on Kuwale Road in Waianae (Residence).
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 7 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

8
During the controlled purchase, the CS observed a handgun displayed on a table
from where Gonzales weighed the above-described drugs. 	Id.
On January 27, 2023, a search warrant was executed at the Residence. 	Id.
at ¶ 8. 	Prior to law-enforcement entry into the Residence, Gonzales “refused to
cooperate and barricaded himself within” the Residence for approximately 40
minutes. 	Id.
The execution of the search warrant resulted in the seizure of approximately
1779 grams of methamphetamine, a loaded Glock-style handgun and ammunition,
$150,388 in U.S. currency, a black iPhone, a scale, a money counter, a safe, and
multiple Ziploc bags. 	Id. at ¶¶ 9-13. 	The $150,388 in U.S. currency, safe, scale,
money counter, and Ziploc bags were found in Gonzales’ bedroom, while the black
iPhone was found in the living room of the Residence. 	Id.1 	All but roughly a
third of a gram of the methamphetamine was found in the trunk of a BMW vehicle
parked on the property of the Residence, with the remainder found inside and
around a toilet in the Residence. 	Id. at ¶¶ 9, 17. 	Of the $150,338 in U.S.
currency, $15,350 was found in a safe in Gonzales’ bedroom, with the remaining
$134,988 found in various places in the same room. 	Id. at ¶¶ 10-12. 	One of
1 The Lesko Declaration does not state where in the Residence the Glock handgun was found;
only that it was found in the Residence. 	See Lesko Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 10(i).
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 8 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

9
those places was in a “Taquitos” box wrapped in cellophane and Christmas paper
and “filled with bundles of U.S. currency.” 	Id. at ¶ 10(a). 	In addition, it was
“determined” that $5,700 of the $150,338 in U.S. currency constituted the “official
advanced funds” used during the controlled purchase with Gonzales on January 26,
2023, id. at ¶ 13,2 and which was forfeited pursuant to a criminal forfeiture, id.,
i.e., independent of this civil proceeding. 	The remaining $144,638 in U.S.
currency is the subject of this civil proceeding, see id., and referred to as the
Currency herein.
According to Homeland Security Investigations Resident Agent in Charge
Ryan Faulkner (RA Faulkner), “[c]ommon tools of the drug trade” include scales,
money counters, plastic bags, and guns. 	Decl. of Ryan Faulkner at ¶ 6 (Faulkner
Declaration), Dkt. No. 79-32. 	RA Faulkner also believes that wrapping a box
containing cash with cellophane and Christmas paper suggests “bulk cash
smuggling”, while the amount of methamphetamine found in executing the search
warrant was “consistent with distribution as opposed to personal use.” 	Id. at ¶¶ 8-
9.
According to SA Lesko, “selfie” pictures of Gonzales, text messages, and
information provided by the CS “indicate[d]” that Gonzales was the “primary user”
2 The Lesko Declaration does not identify who made this determination.
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 9 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

10
of the black iPhone “through January 27, 2023[.]” 	Lesko Decl. at ¶ 18. 	In
addition, RA Faulkner believes that text messages recovered from the iPhone
consisted of, among other things: “code words” regarding the sale of narcotics;
tracking drugs, including methamphetamine and fentanyl, mailed between
California and Hawai‘i; negotiating the “clearing of a debt by purchasing
additional narcotics[]”; and distribution of multiple pounds of methamphetamine.
Faulkner Decl. at ¶¶ 4-5.
Based on the events of January 26-27, 2023, Gonzales was charged with and
convicted of distributing methamphetamine and fentanyl, possessing
methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of ammunition. 	United
States’ Concise Statement of Facts at ¶ 14, Dkt. No. 79.
According to Gonzales, he “[p]robably” last filed a tax return in 2006.
Deposition of Frank Gonzales at 39:4-16 (Gonzales Depo.), Dkt. No. 79-7. 	The
records of the State of Hawai‘i’s Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
(DLIR) indicate Gonzales was “either unemployed or employed by an employer
failing to meet its lawful reporting requirements for the time period from January
1, 2018, to August 1, 2023.” 	Declaration of Bonnie Moriguchi at ¶ 8, Dkt. No.
79-33. 	Gonzales testified that, in September 2022, he received two checks for
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 10 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

11
$2,178 and $12,809, respectively, with neither check being cashed. 	Gonzales
Depo. at 14:14-16:20, 18:17-21. 	Gonzales further testified that, while he had
“winnings” from gambling, his “losses” from gambling “could have been close” to
the same amount. 	Id. at 28:19-30:4. 	Gonzales also testified that, between 2020
and his arrest in 2023, he worked in “parking lot security[,]” which earned him
between $2,400 and $2,800 every month in cash. 	Id. at 21:20-24:3. 	In addition,
Gonzales testified that, between 2017 and 2020, he “worked at Tacos and More”,
earning about $2,600 a month, which was paid to him via check. 	Id. at 24:4-
25:13. 	He did not receive W-2s for either of these jobs. 	Id. at 25:14-18.
DISCUSSION
Because the dispute here concerns the civil forfeiture of property, the Court
begins with the basic legal framework for such forfeiture, something on which the
parties largely appear to agree. 	See Dkt. No. 78 at 17; Dkt. No. 91 at 3-4.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 983(c), to establish that property is subject to
forfeiture on the theory that it was used to commit, used to facilitate the
commission, and/or involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the
Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “there was a
substantial connection between the property and the offense.” 	18 U.S.C. §
983(c)(1), (3). 	Further, pursuant to Section 881(a)(6), “all proceeds traceable” to
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 11 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

12
an exchange for a controlled substance are subject to forfeiture. 	A
“preponderance of the evidence” requires “the government show that it is more
likely than not that the property is subject to forfeiture.” 	United States v. Real
Prop. in Santa Paula, Cal., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1184 (C.D. Cal. 2011). 	A
“substantial connection” does not require the Government to prove a link between
property and a specific act of drug trafficking; rather, the Government “may meet
its burden with sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence linking the currency to
drug trafficking in general.” 	United States v. $11,500.00 in U.S. Currency, 710
F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2013). 	Should the Government do so, the burden shifts
to a claimant, such as Gonzales, to prove that he is “an innocent owner by a
preponderance of the evidence.” 	18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(1); United States v.
$493,850.00 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d 1159, 1170 (9th Cir. 2008). 	“[I]nnocent
owner[ship]” means (1) “not know[ing] of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture”, or
(2) “upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, [doing] all that
reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the
property.” 	18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(2)(A); $493,850.00 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d at
1170.
In light of the foregoing, the initial question here is whether the Government
has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Currency has a
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 12 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

13
“substantial connection” to drug trafficking. 	Undoubtedly, the Government has
done so. 	The many facts presented, to which Gonzales has not properly objected,
show that: (1) in late December 2022, the CS informed SA Lesko that Gonzales
was a fentanyl and methamphetamine distributor; (2) on January 26, 2023, in
Gonzales’ bedroom, the CS purchased fentanyl and methamphetamine from
Gonzales for $5,700; (3) the next day, on January 27, 2023, prior to execution of a
search warrant, Gonzales barricaded himself within the Residence for around 40
minutes; (4) execution of the search warrant resulted in the seizure of
approximately 1779 grams of methamphetamine, a loaded Glock-style handgun
and ammunition, $150,388 in U.S. currency, a black iPhone, a scale, a money
counter, a safe, and multiple Ziploc bags; (5) the $150,338 in U.S. currency was
found in various places in Gonzales’ bedroom, including in a “Taquitos” box
wrapped in cellophane and Christmas paper; (6) part of this $150,338 in U.S.
currency included the $5,700 used to purchase the drugs from Gonzales on January
26, 2023; (7) “[c]ommon tools of the drug trade” include scales, money counters,
plastic bags, and guns; (8) wrapping the “Taquitos” box in cellophane and
Christmas paper suggested “bulk cash smuggling”; (9) the amount of
methamphetamine found in executing the search warrant was “consistent with
distribution as opposed to personal use[]”; (10) text messages recovered from the
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 13 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

14
black iPhone consisted of “code words” regarding the sale of narcotics, tracking
drugs between California and Hawai‘i, negotiating the “clearing of a debt by
purchasing additional narcotics[]”, and distribution of multiple pounds of
methamphetamine; and (11) “selfie” pictures of Gonzales, text messages, and
information provided by the CS “indicate[d]” that Gonzales was the “primary user”
of the black iPhone “through January 27, 2023[.]”
These facts present a clear picture: Gonzales distributed drugs, he did so
from at least his bedroom, and he kept therein the paraphernalia and proceeds of
such endeavors, including all of the Currency. 	There is nothing more the
Government need show to carry the far from heavy burden of showing that the
Currency more likely than not has a “substantial connection” to drug trafficking in
general. 	See $493,850.00 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d at 1170 (concluding that
evidence was sufficient to prove requisite connection where, among other things,
claimant was “observed” during a narcotics investigation, cooperating witnesses
“met” with claimant to discuss drug sales, and cooperating witnesses stated that
claimant “personally” transported drugs and currency).
Gonzales’ only challenges to this conclusion are that the “Government’s
entire civil forfeiture case relies upon the alleged text messages and the
inadmissible declaration of a federal agent.” 	Dkt. No. 91 at 5. 	Both of these
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 14 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

15
contentions lack merit. 	First, contrary to Gonzales’ statement, the Government’s
“entire” case does not depend on the disputed text messages. 	As the laundry list
of facts above reveals, the Government demonstrates the “substantial connection”
it has the obligation to show without reference to the text messages. 	In other
words, ignoring the messages does very little, if anything, to displace the mountain
of remaining evidence showing that the Currency was part and parcel of the drug
operation Gonzales ran from his bedroom and Residence.3 	Second, in addition to
failing to identify which of the Government’s two federal agent declarations he
believes is “inadmissible”, Gonzales never says why. 	His unexplained say-so is
not enough.
In summary, the Government has easily satisfied its initial burden of proving
that the Currency is subject to forfeiture under Sections 983(c) and 881(a)(6). 	As
a result, the burden shifts to Gonzales to prove, also by a preponderance of the
evidence, his innocent ownership of the Currency. 	Gonzales, however, does not
even attempt to carry this burden, given that, as discussed, his only meaningful
3 In addition, as the Government explains in its reply, Dkt. No. 94 at 9-11, contrary to Gonzales’
belief, the text messages were not “rejected” prior to trial by the judge presiding over his
criminal case. 	Instead, the judge left the decision of whether to admit the messages for trial.
See id. 	And, in that regard, Gonzales cites to nothing in the record to reveal what became of the
messages’ admission (or lack thereof) at trial. 	Thus, there is no reason to ignore the text
messages in this proceeding, as Gonzales urges.
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 15 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

16
argument in opposition is that text messages on the black iPhone should be
ignored. 	Those text messages, though, have nothing to do with his alleged
innocent ownership of the Currency. 	See 493,850.00 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d
at 1170 (“Claimants provided no evidence or argument regarding innocent
ownership.”).
In addition, although it is beyond the scope of any argument Gonzales
makes, 	he also provides no evidence of an “alternate theory” for the Currency’s
origin. 	See id. 	To the extent his testimony and “Trulincs” email, suggesting that
he received income from certain jobs and “gambling” in various years preceding
January 2023, are intended to carry his burden in this regard, they do not.
Notably, even if the Court accepted the unsupported notion that Gonzales received
the income he claims—despite the absence of W-2’s, Gonzales’ failure to file tax
returns for the last 20 years, and Gonzales’ failure to chronicle expenses and not
merely revenue—there is no meaningful evidence in the record that the Currency
included any part of that income. 	See United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S.
Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that, “in a civil forfeiture
action, a claimant’s bare assertion of an ownership or possessory interest, in the
absence of some other evidence, is not enough to survive a motion for summary
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 16 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

17
judgment.”). 	As a result, the Court finds that Gonzales has failed to present any
evidence that he is an innocent owner of the Currency.
CONCLUSION
Because there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the substantial
connection between the Currency and Gonzales’ drug trafficking, and there is no
evidence of Gonzales’ innocent ownership of the Currency, the United States’
motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 78, is GRANTED, and the Currency, in
toto, is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Section 881(a)(6).
The Clerk is instructed to enter final judgment in favor of the United States
and then close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 23, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
United States of America vs. $144,638.00 in the United States Currency;
Civil No. 24-00124 DKW-WRP; ORDER GRANTING THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00124-DKW-WRP Document 100 Filed 03/23/26 Page 17 of 17
PageID.<pageID>