United States of America v. $481,480.00 U.S. Currency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL NO. 4:25-CV-2674
$481,480.00 U.S. Currency seized from
Golden Bank account ending in 6321
and
$371,000 U.S. Currency seized from
Parts4Cells Inc.,
Defendants.
JUDGE PALERMO’S
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION1
Plaintiff United States of America (“Government”) brings an in rem action for
forfeiture of $481,480.00 U.S. currency seized from Golden Bank account ending in
6321 and $371,000 U.S. currency seized from Parts4Cells Inc. (collectively,
“Defendant Currency”). Pending before the Court is the Government’s motion for a
default judgment and order of forfeiture. ECF No. 34. Based on a review of the
record and caselaw, the Government’s motion should be granted.
1 The district judge to whom this case is assigned referred all pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. ECF No. 3.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 15

I. 	BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
This is an asset-forfeiture case involving proceeds from a trade-based money
laundering network. In late 2022 and early 2023, federal investigators learned that
several cellphone vendors in Houston, Texas, were involved in a network “used by
drug trafficking organizations . . . and cartels to launder their drug proceeds.” ECF
No. 18 ¶ 11. With the help of a confidential source, Drug Enforcement Agency
(“DEA”) and Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) agents infiltrated the money
laundering network and established “storefront location(s) . . . where dozens of
couriers delivered bulk cash on behalf of Mexico-based cell phone vendors to a
Confidential Source or law enforcement officer acting in an undercover capacity.”
Id. ¶ 13. “The bulk cash was then used to” purchase cellphones “that were shipped
as instructed by the Mexico-based cell phone vendors.” Id.
Asad Kesaria owns and operates Parts4Cells Inc., a wholesale cellphone
business located in Houston. Id. ¶ 16. In August 2024, a confidential source
“delivered $108,000 in narcotics proceeds to [Parts4Cells]” at “the direction of [a]
Mexico-based drug cartel member.” Id. ¶ 18. Asad and Shawn Kesaria were present
and accepted the delivery. Id. The confidential source later “told investigators about
two prior deliveries he/she had made to [Parts4Cells] at the direction of the same
Mexico-based drug cartel member,” providing “cellphone photographs of receipts
from two other dates in August 2024 which were nearly identical to the receipt
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 15

provided by Shawn Kesaria as described above.” Id. ¶ 19. One receipt was for
$99,680, and the other was for $72,800. Id.
In September 2024, “the same Mexico-based drug cartel member” instructed
the confidential source “to pick up $201,000 and deliver it to Asad Kesaria at
[Parts4Cells].” Id. ¶ 20. The source “received the cash in a cardboard box from an
unidentified male in a Starbucks parking lot.” Id.
The following month, “an undercover officer posing as an associate of [the
confidential source] attempted to deliver the $201,000” to Parts4Cells. Id. ¶ 21. But
when the undercover arrived, “[a]n unknown male . . . told the . . . officer that Asad
Kesaria was not there and provided [him] with Asad Kesaria’s telephone number.”
Id. The undercover officer called Asad Kesaria, who advised the officer to “deliver
the cash to his employee, ‘Muen,’ at [Parts4Cells].” Id. ¶ 22. The undercover officer
returned to Parts4Cells and met Muen. Id. Muen “counted the drug proceeds” and
“provided the undercover officer with a handwritten receipt listing ‘Muen,’ the
amount of cash delivered (confirmed to be $201,000), and the” delivery date. Id.
The four cash deliveries to Parts4Cells totaled $481,480. Id. ¶ 23.
Bank records indicate that Parts4Cells opened a Golden Bank account ending
in 6321 on May 11, 2022. Id. ¶ 24. Based on Currency Transaction Reports filed by
Golden Bank, “at least $969,411” was deposited into the account between August
and October 2024. Id. ¶ 26. Investigators determined that the “$481,480 in narcotics
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 15

proceeds delivered to [Parts4Cells] . . . was subsequently deposited into” the Golden
Bank account ending in 6321. Id. ¶ 27. Accordingly, the United States seized the
$481,480 from the account in January 2025. Id. ¶ 28.
On January 23, 2025, federal agents executed a search warrant at Parts4Cells
“in connection with a federal arrest warrant for Asad Kesaria.” Id. ¶ 29. During the
search, IRS agents “found and seized U.S. Currency in a safe located in the storage
area of the business.” Id. The safe contained $371,000. Id. The IRS reviewed
Parts4Cell 	and 	Asad 	Kesaria’s 	business 	software, 	“which 	documented 	cash
payments made to” Parts4Cell, and found that Parts4Cell received “numerous large
cash payments” between November 1, 2024, and January 10, 2025, “including
thirteen payments from a source that is known . . . as a participant in the [trade-based
money laundering] network.” Id. ¶ 30. Payments from the known participant totaled
$1,327,753. Id. Based on these records, agents determined that “the $371,000 . . .
found in the safe is the proceeds of drug trafficking and involved in money
laundering.” Id.
Asad Kesaria was subsequently arrested and indicted on criminal charges in
the Southern District of Texas, Case No. 4:24-cr-581-10, and pled guilty to
“Structuring 	Transactions 	to 	Avoid 	Reporting 	Requirements, 	in 	violation 	of
31 U.S.C. §§ 5324(b)(1) and 5324(d)(1).” Id. ¶ 31. Notably, Asad Kesaria agreed to
forfeit Defendant Currency as part of his plea deal. ECF No. 31 at 1 n.1. The
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 15

Government then filed this civil forfeiture case.
B. Procedural History
On June 9, 2025, the Government filed its original complaint against the
$481,480 seized from Golden Bank account ending in 6321. ECF No. 1. It published
notice of the original complaint on its forfeiture website—forfeiture.gov—from
June 13 through July 12, 2025. ECF No. 5. The Government then filed an amended
complaint adding the $371,000 seized from Parts4Cells on February 12, 2026, ECF
No. 18, and published notice of the amended complaint from February 14 through
March 15, 2026, ECF No. 23. No Claimants filed claims within 60 days of the first
day of either publication.
Additionally, 	the 	Government 	directly 	notified 	all 	potential 	claimants.
Specifically, it served Asad Kesaria, Norma Kesaria, Shawnn Kesaria, Nathan
Kesaria, and Ethan Kesaria with the original and amended complaints via U.S. Postal
Service certified mail, return receipt requested. ECF No. 26 (certificates of service).
On 	July 	17, 	2025, 	Asad 	and 	Norma 	Kesaria 	filed 	an 	answer 	to 	the
Government’s original complaint. ECF No. 6. The Court struck their answer because
they filed it without filing a verified claim. Order, ECF No. 33. No potential
claimant, including Asad and Norma Kesaria, filed claims or answers to the
Government’s amended complaint.
The Government now moves for default judgment and an order of forfeiture.
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 15

ECF No. 34.
II. 	DEFAULT JUDGMENTS UNDER RULE 55
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs default proceedings. “This
involves sequential steps of default, entry of default, and default judgment.” United
States v. $11,409.02 Seized from a Comerica Bank Account Ending in 2113, No.
4:21-CV-01349, 	2021 	WL 	5177065, 	at 	*2 	(S.D. 	Tex. 	Nov. 	8, 	2021).
“A default occurs ‘when a defendant has failed to plead or otherwise respond to the
complaint within the time required by the Federal Rules.’” Id. (emphasis in original)
(quoting N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v Brown, 84 F3d 137, 141 (5th Cir 1996)). The Clerk
enters an entry of default “when a plaintiff establishes the default by affidavit or
otherwise pursuant to Rule 55(a).” Id. The Court can then enter a default judgment
against a defendant upon motion “by a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2).” Id.
Default judgment is “a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and
resorted to by courts only in extreme situations.” Id. (quoting Sun Bank of Ocala v
Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F2d 274, 276 (5th Cir 1989) (footnote
omitted)). It “must be supported by well-pleaded allegations and must have a
sufficient basis in the pleadings.” Id. (quoting Wooten v McDonald Transit Assocs.,
Inc., 788 F3d 490, 498 (5th Cir 2015)). “The well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint are assumed to be true, except those regarding damages.” Id. (citing
Nishimatsu Const. Co., Ltd. v. Hous. Nat. Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir.
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 15

1975)).
District courts have discretion to enter a default judgment. Id.
III. 	THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT.
Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment. Default judgment “is generally
appropriate in forfeiture cases ‘when no responsive pleadings are timely filed’ by
someone claiming an interest in the property.” United States v. $98,723.00 U.S.
Currency, No. 5:24-CV-00034, 2025 WL 3496219, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2025)
(quoting United States v. $10,018.00 in U.S. Currency, 345 F. App’x 24, 25 (5th Cir.
2009) (per curiam)). “However, a claimant’s failure to file a responsive pleading
does not, by itself, automatically entitle the plaintiff to a default judgment.” Id.
(citing Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206 (“[A] defendant’s default does not in itself
warrant the court in entering a default judgment.”)). “Rather, default judgment is
proper 	only 	if 	(1) 	the 	plaintiff 	has 	complied 	with 	all 	relevant 	procedural
requirements, and (2) the ‘well-pleaded factual allegations’ in the plaintiff’s
complaint ‘establish a valid cause of action.’” Id. (quoting United States v. $19,840
in U.S. Currency More or Less, 552 F. Supp. 2d 632, 636 (W.D. Tex. 2008)). If a
default judgment is proper, the Court must then “determine (3) “what form of relief,
if any, the Government should receive.” Id. (quoting $19,840 in U.S. Currency, 552
F. Supp. 2d 632, 635).
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 15

A. The Government Complied with All Procedural Requirements.
i. 	The Government complied with Rule 55.
Here, all potential claimants defaulted because they failed to file timely claims
and answers to the Government’s original and amended complaints as required by
Supplemental Rule G. See Order, ECF No. 35. The Clerk subsequently entered a
default against all potential claimants. Notice of Entry of Default, ECF No. 36. Thus,
the Government has complied with Rule 55.
ii. 	The Government Complied with Supplemental Rule G.
“In asset forfeiture cases, the Government must [also] comply with the
pleading and notice requirements of Rule G.” United States v. $98,723.00 U.S.
Currency, No. 5:24-CV-00034, 2026 WL 1052928, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2026)
(citing United States v. $62,200.00 in U.S. Currency, Civ. No. H-21-3971, 2023 WL
2386884, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2023)), adopted, No. 5:24-CV-00034, 2026 WL
1053089 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2026). First, the Government’s complaint must:
(a) Be verified;
(b) State the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over
the defendant property; and venue;
(c) Describe the property with reasonable particularity;
(d) If the property is tangible, state its location when any seizure occurred
and—if different—its location when the action is filed;
(e) Identify the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought; and
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 15

(f) State sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the
government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.
FED. R. CIV. P. Supp. R. G(2).
Here, the IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent Louis Hirsh verified the
Government’s complaint under penalty of perjury. ECF No. 18 at 11. The Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355(a) because the United
States initiated these proceedings and the action is for forfeiture under federal
statutes, 	18 U.S.C. 	§ 981(a)(1)(A), 	(C); 	21 U.S.C. 	§ 881(a)(6); 	and 	31 U.S.C.
§ 5317(c)(2)(A). 	Id. 	¶¶ 1–4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335(b)(1),
1391(b), and 1395 because the acts giving rise to the forfeiture occurred within the
Southern District of Texas. Id. ¶ 7. Venue is also proper under 18 U.S.C. § 981(h)
because a criminal prosecution has been brought against Asad Kesaria, who owns or
may have an ownership interest in the Defendant Currency, in the Southern District
of Texas based on violations that are the basis for forfeiture. Id. ¶ 8.
Moreover, the amended complaint describes the property to be seized with
reasonable particularity and states the location where it was seized: “The Defendant
Property is (a) $481,480.00 in U.S. Currency, which was seized from a Golden Bank
Account with an account number ending in 6321 . . . and (b) $371,000.00 in U.S.
Currency, which was seized from 5750 Bintliff Drive in Houston, Texas, which is a
business more commonly known as [Parts4Cells Inc.]” Id. ¶¶ 9, 24–31. Likewise, it
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 15

identifies 	the 	statutes 	under 	which 	the 	forfeiture 	was 	brought: 	18 U.S.C.
§§ 981(a)(1)(A), (C); 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6); and 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2)(A). Id.
¶ 32.
The amended complaint also states facts to support a reasonable belief that
the Government would be able to meet its burden at trial. Parts4Cells accepted bulk
cash drug proceeds from Mexico-based cartel affiliates, and Defendant Currency
was found and seized from Parts4Cells’ bank account and safe. Id. ¶¶ 11–31. The
Government obtained receipts from confidential sources and corroborated them
through extensive undercover investigation and forensic accounting to verify that
Parts4Cells received Defendant Currency between August and October 2024 and
deposited it in its Golden Bank account ending in 6321 and its business safe. Id.
Accepting these allegations as true, the Court finds that the Government likely could
establish by a preponderance of evidence at trial that Defendant Currency constitutes
proceeds traceable to an exchange for controlled substances under 21 U.S.C.
§ 881(a)(6).
Additionally, the Government can likely meet its burden of showing that
Defendant Currency was “involved in a violation of” 31 U.S.C. § 5324 because
Parts4Cell owner Asad Kesaria pled guilty to violating § 5321. Id. ¶ 31.
Second, the Government must provide notice to potential claimants after filing
a complaint for forfeiture. For example, the Government must publish notice on its
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 15

forfeiture website for at least 30 consecutive days. FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP. R.
G(4)(a)(iii)(A), (iv)(C). The Government must also directly notify “any person who
reasonably appears to be a potential claimant.” FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP. R. G(4)(b)(i).
After receiving direct notice, potential claimants must file a claim within 35 days.
FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP. R. G(4)(b)(ii). Other claimants must file their claims within 60
days of the first day the Government publishes notice on its website. FED. R. CIV. P.
SUPP. R. G(5)(a)(ii)(B).
Here, the Government complied with Rule G’s notice requirements. It
published 	notice 	of 	the 	original 	complaint 	on 	its 	forfeiture 	website—
forfeiture.gov—from June 13 through July 12, 2025. ECF No. 5. It also published
notice of the amended complaint from February 14 through March 15, 2026. ECF
No. 23. No claimants filed claims within 60 days of the first day of either publication.
Additionally, 	the 	Government 	directly 	notified 	all 	potential 	claimants.
Specifically, it served Asad Kesaria, Norma Kesaria, Shawnn Kesaria, Nathan
Kesaria, and Ethan Kesaria with the original and amended complaints via U.S. Postal
Service certified mail, return receipt requested. ECF No. 26. Additionally, as part of
his plea deal, Asad Kesaria agreed to forfeit Defendant Currency. ECF No. 31 at 1
n.1.
Thus, the Government satisfied Rule G’s procedural requirements.
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 15

B. The
Lindsey Factors Do Not Counsel Against Default Judgment.
Courts in the Fifth Circuit “also evaluate whether default judgment is
procedurally appropriate” by analyzing “the six Lindsey factors.” $98,723.00 U.S.
Currency, 2025 WL 3496219, at *3. The Lindsey factors are whether “(1) a good-
faith mistake or excusable neglect caused the default; (2) a default judgment would
be unduly harsh; (3) substantial prejudice has occurred; (4) there are material issues
of fact remaining; (5) the grounds are clearly established for default; and (6) the
Court would feel obligated, upon the defendant’s motion, to set aside the default.”
Id. (citing $11,409.02 Seized from a Comerica Bank Account, 2021 WL 5177065, at
*3).
Here, none of the Lindsey factors counsel against default judgment. The
grounds for default are established because no claimants have filed timely claims as
required by Supplemental Rule G. No claimants filed timely answers, after filing a
timely claim, disputing the factual allegations in the amended complaint. Their
failure was not caused by excusable neglect because they had actual and constructive
notice of the proceeding and the requirement to file verified claims. Accordingly,
the Court finds that default judgment would not be unduly harsh under these
circumstances and it would not be obliged to set aside the default upon motion.
C. The Government’s Complaint Establishes a Valid Cause of Action.
The Government’s amended complaint also establishes a valid cause of action
for forfeiture. Under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), the Government may obtain “[a]ll
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 15

moneys . . . furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a
controlled 	substance,” 	“all 	proceeds 	traceable 	to 	such 	an 	exchange, 	and 	all
moneys . . . used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of [21 U.S.C. Title
21, Chapter 13, Subchapter I].” Since the Government is claiming the property was
used in a criminal offense, it must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
there was a substantial connection between Defendant Currency and the alleged
offense. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1), (3).
Here, the Government’s amended complaint shows that Defendant Currency
was 	involved 	in 	controlled 	substance 	transactions. 	The 	Government 	alleges
Parts4Cells received four deliveries of cash drug proceeds in August and October
2024, totaling $481,480. ECF No. 18 ¶¶ 16–23. Parts4Cells deposited $969,411 in
Golden Bank accounting ending in 6321 during that same time, including the
“$481,480 in narcotics proceeds.” Id. ¶¶ 24–27. Accordingly, the Government
seized $481,480 from the Golden Bank account. Id. ¶ 28.
On 	January 	23, 	2025, 	the 	Government 	executed 	a 	search 	warrant 	at
Parts4Cells, and agents found and seized $371,000 in a safe within the business. Id.
¶ 29. Business software analyzed by the IRS indicates that the money found in the
safe is drug trafficking proceeds and involved in money laundering. Id. ¶ 30. Thus,
the Government has established a valid claim for forfeiture under 21 U.S.C.
§ 881(a)(6).
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 13 of 15

Moreover, under 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2)(A), the Government may obtain
“[a]ny property involved in a violation of [31 U.S.C.] section. . . 5324.” Here, Asad
Kesaria pled guilty in a criminal case, No. 4:24-cr-580-10, “to the offense of
Structuring 	Transactions 	to 	Avoid 	Reporting 	Requirements, 	in 	violation 	of
31 U.S.C. § 5324(b)(1) and 5324(d)(1).” Id. ¶ 31. Thus, the Government has also
established a valid claim for forfeiture under 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(2)(A).
D. Forfeiture Is Appropriate.
Rule 54(c) provides that “[a] default judgment must not differ in kind from,
or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” FED. R. CIV. P. 54(c). “In
other words, the relief prayed for in a complaint defines the scope of relief available
on default judgment.” $19,840 in U.S. Currency, 552 F. Supp. 2d 632, 637.
Here, the request to forfeit $481,480 seized from Golden Bank account ending
in 6321 and $371,000 seized from Parts4Cells Inc. is the same relief requested from
the Government’s amended complaint. Compare ECF No. 18, with ECF No. 34.
Thus, Rule 54(c) is satisfied, and the Court finds forfeiture is appropriate given the
uncontroverted facts alleged and the relevant law.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Government’s motion for
default judgment, ECF No. 34, be GRANTED and the Defendant Currency be
FORFEITED to the United States.
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 14 of 15

The 	Parties 	have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); F ED. R.
C IV . P. 72(b). Failure to file timely objections will preclude review of factual
findings or legal conclusions, except for plain error. Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d
353, 358 (5th Cir. 2017).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed on May 8, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge
s.
____________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-02674 Document 37 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 15 of 15