MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff the United States of America (“the Government”) commenced this civil forfeiture action via verified complaint for forfeiture in rem against a red Volvo tractor, VIN #: 4V4NC9TH15N390415, bearing New Jersey plates AY-143D, with an attached 40-foot aluminum garbage trailer bearing New Jersey registration TZB50N (“Defendant Vehicle”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(A) as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. §1956 and pursuant to Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. (Dkt. No. 1,
1-3). Presently before the Court is the Government’s renewed motion for default judgment and for entry of a final order of forfeiture under Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and General Order #15 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. (Dkt. No. 22-1.) For the reasons that follow, the Government’s motion for default judgment is granted. II. RELEVENT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On September 14, 2023, after obtaining a clerk’s entry of default, the Government moved for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 55(b) and General Order #15 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. (Dkt. No. 10-1). After reviewing the Government’s motion, the Court found that it could not determine whether the Government had met its burden to establish that Defendant Vehicle was subject to forfeiture absent any allegations related to either the promotion of a specified unlawful activity or the concealment of the nature of proceeds from specified unlawful activity. United States v. A Red Volvo Tractor, No. 6:23-cv-751, 2024 WL 1345526, at *8, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57017, at *23 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2024). The Court granted leave to renew, (id.), and on May 29, 2024, the Government filed the instant motion (Dkt. No. 22-1). III. DISCUSSION Under 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(A), “[a]ny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such property,” is “subject to forfeiture to the United States.” The Government argues that the Defendant Vehicle was property involved in the violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(1)(A)(i), promotional money laundering, and 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(1)(B)(i), concealment money laundering. To establish a violation of these provisions: [T]he government [must] prove that the defendants, (1) knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, (2) conducted or attempted to conduct a financial transaction[,] (3) which in fact involved the proceeds of that unlawful activity, (4) either (a) with the intent to promote the carrying on of that unlawful activity or (b) with the knowledge that the transaction was designed at least in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of the unlawful activity. United States v. Gotti, 459 F.3d 296, 334 (2d Cir.2006). The specified unlawful activities alleged here are access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1029(a); conspiracy to commit access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1029(b)(2); identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1028; and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1028A. (Dkt. No. 1, 5). Because the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of proof with respect to concealment money laundering, the Court does not address promotional money laundering. “[T]he concealment element of the money laundering statute requires that the purpose, not merely the effect, of the endeavor must be to conceal or disguise a listed attribute of the proceeds.” United States v. Garcia, 587 F.3d 509, 512 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550, 564-67 (2008)); see also United States v. Huezo, 546 F.3d 174, 179 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Cuellar confirms that a conviction for…[§1956(a)(1)(B)(i)] money laundering…requires proof that the purpose or intended aim of the transaction was to conceal or disguise a specified attribute of the funds.”). Here, the complaint alleges that on January 18, 2023, after $174.99 in diesel fuel had been pumped in the Defendant Vehicle at a Stewart’s Shops in Hamilton, New York, the owner of a credit card called the Stewart’s Shop location and reported that an unauthorized charge of $175 had been made on his card at the store. (Dkt. No. 1,
