MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On September 22, 2020, plaintiff the United States of America (the “Government”) filed an in rem complaint against the defendant currency amounting to $102,090 (the “currency”). The Government contends that the currency is subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. §§841 and 881(a)(6) because it is money furnished in, intended to be furnished in, or proceeds traceable to a drug exchange. Gary Davis (“Davis” or “claimant”), by all accounts the currency’s former owner, has appeared in this case to stake his own claim to the currency. Citing procedural failings on claimant’s part, the Government moved to strike his claim under Supplemental Rule for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rule”) G on March 8, 2021. Before resolving that tug of war between Davis and the Government, though, it is helpful to keep in mind how the currency came to be the prize the parties are now fighting over. In early 2019, the authorities1 got a tip from a confidential informant (the “CI”), that claimant was dealing cocaine out of Kingston, New York. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”), 7. Claimant’s alleged enterprise was neither particularly novel nor particularly complex, but in brief, claimant would supply drugs to another Kingston local (the “associate”) who would then sell the drugs to the public. Id. According to the CI, the claimant would get a cut of the money once his associate had sold the cocaine. Id. Operating on that understanding as to how Davis’ scheme worked, the authorities worked to corroborate the CI’s story by tailing claimant’s alleged associate. Compl.
9-10. The authorities also conducted five controlled buys with the associate between May and July of 2019. Id.
