Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GALINA ROZENBERG

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-08

Docket: 9:22-cr-80022-DSL-4

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a third-party claimant’s request to recover funds from a preliminary forfeiture order entered in a criminal health care fraud case. The court held that the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the ancillary forfeiture proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 982 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2, which authorize courts to determine forfeitable property without regard to third-party interests at the preliminary stage and to adjudicate third-party claims through subsequent ancillary hearings. Furthermore, the court ruled that the appellant, Galina Vorobieva, lacked standing to challenge the forfeitability of the funds or the government’s assertion that they were traceable to the defendants’ fraud. Citing 21 U.S.C. § 853(k) and *United States v. Davenport*, the court explained that federal law bars third parties from intervening in criminal forfeiture trials or appealing determinations regarding the validity of the forfeiture itself; a third party may only prevail by proving they hold a superior right, title, or interest in the property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6). Because Vorobieva could not relitigate the forfeitability of the funds and failed to establish her own ownership interest, the district court’s order denying her claim was upheld. The practical consequence is that the forfeiture order stands, and the government retains the authority to seize the identified funds.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.