Conner Eldridge
A recent change in the Internal Revenue Service’s policy on seized money has already helped one Arkansan who had nearly $34,000 seized because of the way he made his bank deposits.
Dinanath Mulloli’s money was seized in September 2013 from bank accounts in El Dorado on which he had signature authority for two companies. According to an affidavit filed by Janet L. Ploudre, an IRS Criminal Investigation special agent, Mulloli allegedly asked a bank employee, “How much money can I deposit before it has to be reported?”
The bank employee said she told him that she didn’t know, but “ever since that conversation Mulloli has been making all of his deposits after the bank closes, and the deposits have all been under $10,000,” Ploudre said.
The agent said the deposits were “structured” to evade currency reporting requirements, but there was no allegation that the money originated from illegal sources.
In February, the office for the U.S. Attorney for the Western District filed a civil forfeiture complaint to keep $33,954 that was seized.
Attorney James Bennett of El Dorado, in an answer filed in the case, said Mulloli’s “English is not good.” Any statements he made were “most likely made from misunderstanding and/or frustration from repeatedly being asked to provide identification at an institution where he is well known,” Bennett wrote.
The civil forfeiture lawsuits have come under criticism by groups such as the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm based in Arlington, Virginia.
“The civil forfeiture laws make it very easy for the government to take your money without much investigation,” said Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice. “And it’s expensive for you to get your money back. So a lot of people simply settle, even when they’ve done nothing wrong.”
He also said that one of the reasons the practice is on the rise is because the agencies that seize the money end up getting to keep a portion of it.
Conner Eldridge, the U.S. attorney for the Western District, denied any financial motivation for the civil proceedings.
“Our aim and our objective as an office is to follow the facts and make a judgment about whether criminal activity has occurred and if it has, prosecute it,” Eldridge said. “Our job is not to target money and generate funds in that manner. That’s expressively not the objective.”
Eldridge declined to comment about Mulloli’s case, but his office filed a motion to dismiss the case because of the IRS’ change of policy. In response to an October article in The New York Times, IRS Criminal Investigation Chief Richard Weber said the agency would no longer target money from “legal sources” structuring cases unless there were exceptional circumstances.
The civil forfeiture case involving Mulloli’s money was dismissed Nov. 21.
Sign up for Daily E-news
