Legal Opinion

People v. Semaan

California Supreme Court

Decided August 13, 2007No. S139685PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WERDEGAR, J.

Penal Code section 186.11, 1 sometimes called the

“Freeze and Seize Law,” 2 permits the superior court in certain white-collar criminal cases to take possession of assets under the defendants’ control and to preserve them for the payment of restitution. A person who claims an interest in frozen assets may seek their release by filing a verified claim with the superior court. (§ 186.11, subd. (e)(6).) In this case, the superior court denied a claim filed by the person whose name appeared on a frozen bank account controlled by defendants, finding the claimant failed to show…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bowers v. BernardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  2. Crocker National Bank v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Weiner v. FleischmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. People v. Superior Court (Jones)California Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Olson v. OlsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Meoli v. Huntington National Bank (In Re Teleservices Group, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 2012
  2. Coyne v. De Leo, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  3. People v. MozesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. Marr. of ValliCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  5. (PC) Pangborn v. CDCRDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API