Criminal Defense Case Results

We were retained in April of 2026 after our client’s Binance account holding over 1.694 Bitcoin (BTC) in a Binance account was frozen at the request of an agent with U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Before we were retained, the client had spent more than a year emailing the HSI special agent who kept requesting additional information but refused to explain any lawful basis for why the cryptocurrency was frozen.

When we first contact the HSI agency shortly after being retained, he sent the following email:

Good morning, Ms. Sammis.

As this matter is part of an ongoing federal investigation, I am limited in what I can discuss and unfortunately cannot provide substantive details about the status of the case. I also cannot comment on or disclose any information that may have been obtained through the grand jury process.

I am forwarding your contact information and email to AUSA ______. He should be reaching out to you as soon as he’s available.

Respectfully,

[Redacted name of the agent]

Special Agent

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)

SAC Houston / Cyber Investigations
HSI – USAO SDTX Cybercrimes Liaison

On May 18, 2026, we helped the client file a verified claim for court action. We also contact the AUSA. After providing additional information and preparing a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property, the agent and AUSA finally agreed to release the funds.

The HSI agent sent the following email:

Ms. Sammis,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding [name of client redated] and the [frozen bitcoin in Binance Account UID# __________].

I am writing to inform you that Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) has concluded its federal investigation into this matter and is not pursuing further enforcement action. We have notified Binance that our original request for a courtesy freeze was made pending review of certain records and that the federal investigation is now closed.

Any further action regarding the disposition of the assets is now a civil matter between Binance, Coinbase, and the account holders, and will be subject to Binance’s internal policies and procedures.

Please note that this determination by HSI does not preclude any state or local authorities from pursuing their own investigation or enforcement action if they choose to do so.

If you have additional questions regarding the status of the assets, we recommend you contact Binance directly.

Respectfully,

[redacted]

Special Agent

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)

SAC Houston / Cyber Investigations
HSI – USAO SDTX Cybercrimes Liaison

Binance restored the account a few days later.

The United States Secret Service (USSS) (tlrinfo@usss.dhs.gov ) returned 925,121.82 USDT, worth $925,121.82, seized from a Binance Account to Sammis Law Firm. The seizure was part of a forfeiture action related to a criminal case pending in the Eastern District of Texas. We provided information to the USSS and the assigned AUSA that the funds were improperly seized from our clients and should be returned. Additionally, the investigation uncovered problems with the seizure warrant.

We were retained on August 8, 2025, to represent clients with a Binance account worth over $2,170,000 in USDT. The clients retained us after 33 months of requesting information from Binance.com customer service about why their account was frozen only to be repeatedly told the “account under internal review” or “completion expected soon.” After determining the account was frozen at the request of the FBI, we filed a verified claim demanding court action which was signed by our clients. We were then contacted by a DEA Special Agent and the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the case. Based on the FBI’s concerns, we helped our clients provide records showing how the transactions occurred, and why they had no knowledge that some small portion of the funds could allegedly be traced to a vast money laundering enterprise. The AUSA indicated they would normally seize the funds, start the forfeiture process, and provide my clients with direct notice of the seizure. Based on the information provided, however, the government decided not to take that action because our clients had explained, in detail, that they were unwittingly involved. The information provided was helpful to the federal investigation and suggested our clients made trades without properly vetting the source of the funds and/or the trade counterparty, but had no criminal intent. For those reasons, on September 10, 2025, the FBI and AUSA decided to withdraw the FBI’s freeze request. Within 2 business days, the account was unfrozen. 

On August 20, 2025, the Institute for Justice (IJ) and Sammis Law Firm just won an appeal in the 11th Circuit. At the trial level, we took a case in which a man had $8,500 seized by DEA at the Atlanta Airport. Although such cases are usually cost-prohibitive, Jason Sammis took the case because he believes the DEA seizure was particularly unfair and illegal. The Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) wouldn’t give up and forced Jason Sammis to file a motion to suppress and a motion for summary judgment.

On January 29, 2019, the government’s motion to dismissed was filed in federal court which terminated the prosecution. Our client was charged a “petty federal theft offense” in federal court. After providing mitigation on the client’s behalf, the Special Assistant United States Attorney filed a “Government’s Motion to Dismiss” the case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 48(a), with leave of the Court. As a result, all charges were dismissed.

On July 23, 2026, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Agents working on behalf of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Tampa, FL, seized our client’s 2023 Hellcat Challenger Jailbreak.

On August 6, 2026, our client received a “NOTICE OF SEIZURE AND INFORMATION TO CLAIMANTS NON-CAFRA FORM.” The non-CAFRA notice of seizure set the appraised domestic value of the vehicle was $62,500.00. The letter claimed the vehicle was seized and subject to forfeiture for violations of the following provisions:

• 19 USC 1595a(d), 22 USC 401, 19 CFR 192.2 – Export of Self-Propelled Vehicles and/or Vehicle Parts Without Presenting Vehicle and Documentation Required by Regulations; and
• 19 USC 1595a(D), 22 USC 401, 15 CFR 30.71(b)(4), 15 CFR 30.6(a)(17) – Incorrect Shipment Vehicle in Electronic Export Information (EEI).

Typically, the attorneys at Sammis Law Firm recommend NOT FILING any of the following:

• a petition;
• an offer in compromise; or
• an offer to substitute release of the seized property on payment of the appraised value.

Each of those options allow CBP to decide what happens to the property. Instead, we recommend filing a erified claim to demand early judicial intervention through court action when the client:

• wants the vehicle back
• did not knowingly commit the alleged violation; or
• has a viable defense.

In this case, Attorney Ricardo De Lucca helped the client file a verified claim to demand early judicial intervention through court action, complete a modified election of rights form, post a $5,000 cash bond, and provide information to CBP about why no violation occurred. Filing the verified claim and posting the $5,000 bond forced CBP to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office who “declined” to file any complaint for forfeiture in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

On September 9, 2026, Tracy L. Baer, the paralegal for CBP’s Acting Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Officer, Amelia Castelli, send us a letter that provided: “After review of the matter, the Government has decided to release the property to you.” The letter also provided information on how to make arraignments to pick up the vehicle.