United States v. Madoff
Facts
In 2006, the Bairds, who were BLMIS clients, gave Madoff a sculpture made from three African masks to thank him for taking good care of their family's investment. They personally delivered it to him at his office, their daughter presented it, and Madoff thanked them for it. After Madoff later pled guilty and the government forfeited property from his apartment, the sculpture was found among items to be auctioned. The Bairds claimed they would not have made the gift had they known Madoff was fraudulently handling their investment and argued the gift was effectively conditional.
Issue
Did the Bairds plausibly allege a legal right, title, or interest in the forfeited sculpture sufficient to sustain a third-party petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), or had they already divested themselves of any interest by making an irrevocable gift to Madoff?
Rule
A third-party petition in a criminal forfeiture proceeding must allege the nature and extent of the petitioner's right, title, or interest in the property and must state a plausible claim to relief. Under New York law, an inter vivos gift is complete when there is intent to make a present, irrevocable transfer, delivery to the donee, and acceptance by the donee; once completed, the donor is divested of ownership, and a gift is not revocable merely because the donor's premise or motivation for making it was false.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
On the government's motion to dismiss, which is the strongest basis for dismissal?