USA v. Sterz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: 24-cr-20022-JB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
PETER STERZ
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF VESSEL
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the following Motions and Notices
filed by Defendant, all relating to disposition of a 2007 50 HT vessel known as M/V
EXOTICA bearing hull identification number XGUP6619C607 (the “Vessel”): (i)
Request 	for 	Vessel 	Status 	dated 	July 	22, 	2025, 	ECF 	No. 	[94], 	to 	which 	the
Government filed a Response, ECF No. [96], and an Updated Response, ECF 	No.
[106]; (ii) Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Preservation of Property, ECF No. [97];
(iii) Notice of No Response and Renewed Request for Ruling with Supplemental
Motion for Disclosure of Vessel Location, Inspection, and Preservation of Property,
ECF No. [100]; (iv) Motion for Judgment and Order for Return of Seized Vessel, ECF
No. [104]; and (v) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Sale and for Return of Property, ECF
No. [113]. 	Through his various Motions and Notices, Defendant requests that the
Court issue an injunction stopping the sale of the Vessel. ECF No. [113].
In April 2024, Defendant pled guilty to one count of encouraging and inducing
Case 1:24-cr-20022-JB Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2026 Page 1 of 6

2
an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless
disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation
of law, in violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324(a)(l)(A)(iv). ECF No.
[39]. 	As part of his guilty plea, Defendant signed a Plea Agreement and Factual
Proffer. ECF Nos. [39], [40]. In his Factual Proffer, Defendant agreed that he used
the Vessel to smuggle aliens into the United States. ECF No. [40] ¶¶ 3, 6–7. Further,
Defendant’s Plea Agreement states:
The Defendant further agrees to forfeit to the United States
voluntarily and immediately any property used, or intended to be
used, in any matter or part, to commit or facilitate the commission
of the violations.
******
The 	Defendant 	knowingly 	and 	voluntarily 	waives 	all
constitutional, legal and equitable defenses to the forfeiture of the
assets in any judicial or administrative proceeding, including any
claim or defense under the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; waives any applicable time limits to the
initiation of administrative or judicial proceedings, and waives
any right to appeal the forfeiture.
ECF No. [39] ¶¶ 9–10 (emphasis supplied).
In July 2024, the Government filed a Notice on Forfeiture advising that
“United States Customs and Border Protection [“CBP”] is pursuing administrative
forfeiture of property seized in this case,” namely the Vessel. ECF No. [66]; see also
ECF No. [96] at 2 (“[A]s set forth in the Notice on Forfeiture, ECF No. 66, the United
States Attorney’s Office is not pursuing criminal judicial forfeiture. CBP is pursuing
administrative forfeiture of the vessel and is going through its agency process.”). In
connection with the administrative forfeiture, Coastal 1 Credit Union filed a petition
Case 1:24-cr-20022-JB Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2026 Page 2 of 6

3
with CBP seeking relief from forfeiture on the basis that Coastal 1 holds a “perfected
1 st lien secured against [the] [V]essel.” ECF No. [106-1] at 1. On September 5, 2025,
CBP approved Coastal 1’s petition and agreed to release the Vessel to Coastal 1 upon
the performance of certain conditions. 	Id. at 2. 	Those conditions were met and the
Vessel was released to Coastal 1.
Defendant asserts that on April 1, 2026, he received notice from Coastal 1
“stating that the [V]essel was repossessed and will be sold after April 10, 2026.” ECF
No. [113] at 2. Defendant contends that the Vessel is “subject to a perfected security
interest held by Von Sterzing Foreign Trust,” of which Defendant is a beneficiary,
that was perfected and filed before Coastal 1’s lien. Id. at 2; ECF Nos. [94], [104] ¶
4, [107]. As such, Defendant argues that failure to return the Vessel to him violates
due process and “secured creditor rights,” as well as constitutes an unlawful seizure.
ECF No. [113] at 2.
Where property is seized pursuant to civil or administrative forfeiture, or if a
movant invokes Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure after the close
of all criminal proceedings, “the court treats the motion for return of property as a
civil action in equity.” United States v. Cooper, 485 F. App'x 411, 414 (11th Cir. 2012
(citations and quotation marks omitted). 	Equitable jurisdiction to review forfeiture
is extremely limited. See United States v. Watkins, 120 F.3d 254, 256 (11th Cir. 1997).
The decision to exercise equitable jurisdiction is “highly discretionary and must be
exercised with caution and restraint.” Cooper, 485 F. App’x at 414. As the Eleventh
Circuit explained, “jurisdiction is generally appropriate ‘only when the petitioner’s
Case 1:24-cr-20022-JB Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2026 Page 3 of 6

4
conduct and the merits of his petition require judicial review to prevent manifest
injustice.’” 	United States v. Zambrano, 353 F. App’x 227, 228 (11th Cir. 2009)
(quoting United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672, 674 (11th Cir.1999)). 	A district
court should grant relief only if the movant demonstrates that he has (i) a possessory
interest in the seized property and (ii) “clean hands” with respect to that property.
See United States v. Prat, 584 F. App’x 921, 924 (11th Cir. 2014) (““In order for an
owner of property to invoke Rule 41(g), he must show that he had a possessory
interest in the property seized by the government,’ and that he has ‘clean hands’ with
respect to the property.”) (quoting United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971, 974 (11th
Cir.2005)).
Defendant 	cannot 	meet 	his 	burden. 	In 	particular, 	Defendant 	cannot
demonstrate that he has a possessory interest in the Vessel because he forfeited his
rights to the Vessel when he pleaded guilty. See ECF No. [39] ¶ 9; Prat, 584 F. App’x
at 924 (criminal defendant “no longer had a possessory interest in the forfeited
properties” because “[a]s part of his plea agreement, Prat agreed that the listed
properties were subject to forfeiture and agreed to give up all interest in them.”). As
part of his Plea Agreement, Defendant also “knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] all
constitutional, legal and equitable defenses to the forfeiture of the [Vessel] in any
judicial or administrative proceeding . . .” and “waive[d] any right to appeal the
forfeiture.” Id. ¶ 10.
Nor can Defendant demonstrate clean hands with respect to the Vessel.
Defendant was convicted of smuggling aliens into the United States using the Vessel.
Case 1:24-cr-20022-JB Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2026 Page 4 of 6

5
See ECF No. [65]. 	Indeed, in his Factual Proffer, Defendant agreed that “had [his
criminal] case gone to trial, the United States would have proven . . . beyond a
reasonable doubt” that: (i) Defendant was “the captain and operator of the Vessel,”
(ii) 	“six (6) foreign nationals” were housed on the Vessel “in the cabin below deck,”
none of whom possessed documents that would allow them to lawfully enter the
United States, and one of whom had been convicted of an aggravated felony, and (iii)
Defendant “receiv[ed] $1,000 from another man in connection with his operation of
the Subject Vessel from the Bahamas to the United States.” ECF No. [40] ¶¶ 4, 6–7.
Given Defendant’s criminal conviction—and his use of the Vessel to commit
the crime for which he was convicted—Defendant is not entitled to equitable relief.
See e.g., Howell, 425 F.3d at 974. (denying Rule 41(g) motion because defendant “has
come into court with extremely ‘unclean hands.’ One engaged in this type of criminal
conduct is hardly entitled to equitable relief.”); United States v. Machado, 465 F.3d
1301, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006) (district court acted within its discretion in denying
defendant's Rule 41(g) motion because to do otherwise would have returned the fruits
of his crimes), abrogated on other grounds, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007);
Prat, 584 F. App’x at 925 (district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
criminal defendant equitable relief because he “undisputedly had ‘unclean hands.’ As
part of his guilty plea, [defendant] admitted that he had used funds obtained from
his fraud scheme to purchase the property he had agreed to forfeit.”).
Given that Defendant has no valid legal or equitable interest in the Vessel, he
is not entitled to return of the Vessel nor an injunction to stop its sale. 	Indeed, an
Case 1:24-cr-20022-JB Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2026 Page 5 of 6

6
injunction 	is 	improper 	here 	because 	Defendant 	cannot 	show 	he 	would 	suffer
irreparable harm from the sale of the Vessel. “A showing of irreparable injury is the
sine qua non of injunctive relief.” 	Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir.
2000). Monetary harm is not an irreparable injury. See Cunningham v. Adams, 808
F.2d 815, 821 (11th Cir. 1987) (“An injury is ‘irreparable’ only if it cannot be undone
through monetary remedies.”) (citation omitted); see also Anderson v. United Airlines,
Inc., 577 F. Supp. 3d 1324, 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2021) (“[E]conomic damages [generally]
do not constitute irreparable harm sufficient to require a mandatory preliminary
injunction.”).
Accordingly, for these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as
follows:
1. 	Defendant’s Request for Vessel Status, ECF No. [94]; Defendant’s
Motion 	for 	Evidentiary 	Hearing 	and 	Preservation 	of 	Property, 	ECF 	No. 	[97];
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment and Order for Return of Seized Vessel, ECF No.
[104]; and Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Enjoin Sale and for Return of Property,
ECF No. [113], are DENIED.
2. 	Defendant’s Renewed Request for Ruling with Supplemental Motion for
Disclosure of Vessel Location, Inspection, and Preservation of Property, ECF No.
[100] is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this 8th day of April, 2026.
______________________________________
JACQUELINE BECERRA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cr-20022-JB Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2026 Page 6 of 6