Rowland has chance to regain $22,050 forfeit on The Murfreesboro Post

Sidebar Ads

Rowland has chance to regain $22,050 forfeit

Related Articles

By: Lisa Marchesoni

Posted: Saturday, February 20, 2010 6:46 am

A Murfreesboro man whose $22,050 was seized by federal agents in a money laundering investigation may have another chance to regain his money.

Defendant James Christopher Rowland, who faces a March federal trial on money laundering indictments, appealed the forfeiture of his $22,050 to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who sent the case back Tuesday to U.S. District Court for another hearing.

The federal money laundering charges accused Rowland of using $420,000 from illegal drug proceeds to sell cars, houses and interests in boxing promotions.

Rowland of New Salem Highway was indicted for laundering money through his Lowry Street Motors auto dealership in Smyrna, through his real estate houses on 1403 Teresa Lane and 347 Titans Circle and through his partial ownership in Prize Fight Promotions.

During a drug distribution and money laundering investigation, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents seized the $22,050 on Sept. 20, 2007 from Rowland’s office. The U.S. Attorney’s office filed action for Rowland to forfeit the cash.

At the district court level, Rowland’s attorney Peter Strianse filed a motion stating Rowland had a verified claim to the money and had not violated any drug or money laundering laws.

Wiseman found the prosecutors tried to notify Rowland of the claim.

Rowland and his attorney contended they didn’t receive notice but the clerk entered a default the same day he filed a claim. District Court Judge Thomas Wiseman ordered the money forfeited so Rowland appealed.

In Tuesday’s decision, the appellate court found Wiseman incorrectly focused on case law instead of a rule to set aside default and ordered the case back to Wiseman.

The appellate judges ruled district courts should favor federal rules rather than strict compliance with forfeiture rules.

Because Rowland acted quickly in trying to set aside the default, the appellate judges wrote Rowland had shown meritorious defenses for the forfeiture.

The appellate judges ordered Wiseman to determine if Rowland was responsible for the default by willingly failing to appear. If he mistakenly failed to appear, Wiseman was instructed to set aside the forfeiture and handle Rowland’s claim on its merits.

Rowland remains free while awaiting his trial.

Tagged under James Christopher Rowland, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Member Opinions:

By: momx5 on 2/20/10
whatever...like this legal mumbo jumbo makes any sense to anyone outside of the courthouse!!!

By: JustAguy on 2/20/10
Thanks murfreesboro post for keeping us updated !!!!

By: mhm2a on 2/23/10
So the last sentence says he is awaiting trial? Is that accurate? Should they await the outcome for the trial before they forfeit a man's money? Only seems logical....