Milin Chun's Legal Cases (3)

Criminal defense

Plea Negotiation Returns $4.5 Million to Client after Federal Charges

N/A

OUTCOME:

In October 2011, Anjay Patel was one of ten individuals charged with numerous violations of the Contraband Cigarette Tax Act (CCTA), as well as additional money laundering violations, after allegedly p ... articipating in a multi-million dollar contraband scheme involving the sale and redistribution of untaxed cigarettes. At the time of his arrest, the federal government had seized and restrained over $8 million in assets, in addition to the millions of dollars reaped from the defendants during the 18-month undercover sting investigation. Following his indictment, the government offered the return of the nominal sum of $100,000 in assets in exchange for a guilty plea to the numerous charges against him. Under the government’s offer, Mr. Patel was also required to forfeit his family home where his wife and 3 children resided. Unhappy with the offer Mr. Patel discharged his then counsel and sought counsel from Kenneth W. Ravenell, Paula Xinis and Milin Chun of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy to negotiate his plea deal. Had Mr. Patel accepted the plea deal as it stood, he would have forfeited all of his profitable and legitimate business ventures and bank accounts, effectively rendering him unable to lead a normal life for the foreseeable future. In February 2013, Ravenell, Xinis and Chun were able to secure Mr. Patel a plea deal that involved the return of nearly $4.5 million in cash and related assets that included his family home and many of his businesses—45 times higher than the amount originally offered by the federal government. The return of the real estate and business properties will allow Mr. Patel to continue to support his family.

Criminal defense

Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule Upheld by Maryland Court of Appeals

N/A

OUTCOME:

In 2007, our client was arrested and indicted on charges including, inter alia, possession and distribution of controlled dangerous substances and possession of firearms following the search of his hom ... e and vehicles. Prior to trial, we filed a motion to suppress, arguing that there had been no probable cause to support the warrant authorizing the search and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. Because law enforcement officials had searched and seized evidence pursuant to an invalid warrant, we asked that the court exclude all evidence recovered from the searches. At risk were our client’s constitutional due process rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as provided under the Fourth Amendment. Though a judge had issued a search warrant at the request of police, the detectives’ affidavit submitted in support of the application did not, we argued, provide probable cause to believe that contraband would be found in our client’s home or vehicles. Led by Kenneth Ravenell and Milin Chun, Murphy, Falcon & Murphy sought to have excluded from the case the illegally obtained evidence thereby devastating the State’s case against our client. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County found that there was no substantial basis upon which a judge could have found probable cause to issue the warrant authorizing this search and excluded all the evidence seized from our client’s home and vehicles. On direct appeal by the State, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that while there was no substantial basis to find probable cause, the circuit court had erred in excluding the evidence because the officers had relied on the warrant in good faith and therefore the exclusionary rule did not apply and the evidence should not have been excluded. After the Court of Appeals granted certiorari, something that is infrequently done, we argued the case before Maryland’s highest court where the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals holding both that the warrant was invalid and that the government did not qualify for the “good faith” exception. Had the State of Maryland decided to try this case, they would have been prohibited from introducing any of the evidence seized from the defendant’s property, including drugs, handguns and $30,000 in cash. The case was dismissed. This case was very significant and has been hailed and cited by criminal defense attorneys all over the country because courts have routinely upheld otherwise invalid warrants based on the good faith exception.

Criminal defense

Assets Returned Upon Dismissal of Arizona Forfeiture Case

N/A

OUTCOME:

Shortly after our client’s arrest in 2011, the State of Arizona seized and restrained many of his assets, including hundreds of thousands of dollars and luxury cars. The State then failed to file a For ... feiture Complaint within the proper time period. We filed a Motion for Return of Property and, just before the Court was about to hear this argument, the State dismissed the case and “reseized” the very same assets. The State’s actions denied our client from arguing for—and likely obtaining—the immediate return of his property because they failed to file a timely complaint. The State seized and continued to restrain the client’s assets for almost two years and took actions to deliberately delay his right to a post-deprivation/post-seizure hearing, as required under Arizona law. At risk were our client’s due process right to a prompt post-deprivation/post-seizure hearing and the continued unlawful restraint of his assets. The State had not only seized his property, but took outright actions to preclude the client’s right to a hearing where the State would have to establish that it had probably cause to keep his assets. Kenneth Ravenell and Milin Chun of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy partnered with two Perkins Coie attorneys in Phoenix, Arizona, Jean-Jacques Cabou and D. Andrew Gaona, to present a compelling case to the court. After almost two years of litigation, the Court found that the State of Arizona violated the client’s due process rights by the combination of violating Arizona forfeiture statutes and its efforts to delay resolution of the case for an unreasonable, excessive period of time. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice, which means the State can never attempt to reseize the client’s property. The state was ordered to return over $750,000 to our client, as well as his nine luxury vehicles, including four Mercedes and a BMW.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained