Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anthony Bustos, Sr. was the defendant in a federal criminal case in the Western District of Texas in which a final order of forfeiture was entered against a residential property located in Monahans, Texas. His daughter, Brittany Bustos, filed a third-party petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), asserting a legal interest in the property and seeking to exempt it from the forfeiture order. She claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value of the property.
The district court dismissed Bustos’s petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(1)(A), which permits dismissal of a third-party petition that fails to set forth sufficient facts to support the claimed interest. Bustos appealed, arguing that her petition met the statutory requirements of § 853(n) and adequately alleged that she acquired the property as a bona fide purchaser for value.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, reviewing the district court’s ruling de novo. The court held that Bustos’s petition failed to allege sufficient facts regarding the time and circumstances under which she acquired her interest in the property, and failed to adequately allege that she was a bona fide purchaser for value, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3) and (6)(B).
Relying on its prior decisions in United States v. Butt, 930 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2019), and United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development, 722 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2013), the court concluded that bare or conclusory assertions of a bona fide purchaser status are insufficient to survive dismissal under Rule 32.2(c)(1)(A). Because Bustos’s petition did not supply the necessary factual detail, the district court did not err in dismissing it.
Key Takeaways
- A third-party petitioner challenging criminal forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) must plead specific facts about the time and circumstances of acquiring the property interest — conclusory allegations of bona fide purchaser status are not enough.
- District courts may dismiss a third-party forfeiture petition under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(A) when the petition fails to state sufficient factual allegations supporting the claimed legal interest.
- Family relationships to a criminal defendant do not themselves establish or undermine a third-party property claim; the claim stands or falls on the adequacy of the factual pleading.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s strict pleading standard for third-party petitioners seeking to recover property subject to criminal forfeiture. Attorneys representing clients with potential interests in criminally forfeited assets must ensure that petitions under § 853(n) include detailed factual allegations — including when, how, and for what consideration the interest was acquired — rather than relying on conclusory statements of bona fide purchaser status.
The ruling also serves as a reminder that courts will apply Rule 32.2(c)(1)(A) as a meaningful gatekeeping mechanism, dismissing facially insufficient petitions before they proceed to an evidentiary hearing. This places the burden squarely on petitioners to conduct thorough factual investigation and present those facts in their initial pleading.