Jeffery Regnier and Greta Keranen, owners of Kee Firearms and Training LLC, are suing the Will County, Illinois, Sheriff's Office and the United States Secret Service.
The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 9, alleges civil rights infringements by the federal government due to the allegedly unwarranted confiscation of $5.5 million in assets during their arrests in a COVID relief fraud probe, made in February 2023, as Patch.com reports.
Regnier and Keranen face criminal charges including wire fraud, money laundering, loan fraud, and defrauding state benefits. These charges arose after authorities accused them of illegally obtaining hundreds of thousands of dollars intended for pandemic assistance. The legal complaint filed by Ettinger and Associates on behalf of Regnier and Keranen names the Secret Service and the Will County Sheriff's Office as defendants.
The couple asserts that the government agencies pursued frivolous civil forfeiture claims when they seized various assets, which included two Ford Broncos, a 2021 Audi RS Q8, a 2022 Ford 250, and several Fidelity investment accounts.
The suit also mentions Secret Service Agent Cayla Coleman as a defendant. It contends that the accusations are based on vague assumptions and speculation rather than concrete evidence. The federal complaint highlights "an overwhelming amount of money" involved in the case, suggesting its size led to the unjustified actions by law enforcement.
Regnier and Keranen argue the government has failed to identify any illegitimate source for a series of significant cash deposits. Between Dec. 18, 2020, and Jan. 3, 2022, these deposits totaled over $2.6 million. The complaint states these were not connected to any alleged illegal activities other than three purportedly fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loans and unemployment benefits totaling around $274,000.
The lawsuit underscores the absence of allegations regarding other illegal activities, such as drug trafficking. The complaint insists that the size of transactions should not imply criminal origins without substantial proof from authorities.
The seizure of Regnier and Keranen's investment accounts had additional financial implications. The lawsuit claims that stocks from these accounts were sold upon seizure, leading to a $1 million financial loss. This, they say, compounds the alleged improper seizure of $5.5 million.
Despite the accusations of fraudulent loans totaling $274,000, the lawsuit insists that any wrongdoing related to this sum does not warrant the sweeping asset seizure. It emphasizes that even if the loans were obtained illegally, the extent of the seizure was disproportionate and constitutes an abuse of power. The lawsuit claims the enforcement actions exhibited no genuine basis for confiscating funds beyond the disputed relief amount. In the words of the complaint, this constitutes an "intentional and illegal" misuse of authoritative powers by both local and federal agencies involved.
The legal proceedings have added another layer of complexity for the couple as they await the continuation of their criminal cases. A court appearance is scheduled for early February 2025, which may illuminate further details surrounding the allegations. The couple's complaint highlights concerns about the financial autonomy of the authorities involved in seizing significant sums under civil forfeiture, suggesting these measures were exaggerated without firm grounds. It articulates worries that these actions are unconstitutional.
From the federal complaint, one notable passage states that a majority of the seized funds were held in stocks. These were moved from Fidelity accounts upon execution of the warrant. It asserts there is "no good faith basis for the seizure of the remainder of the funds," marking this strategy as a misuse of authority.
Regnier and Keranen's filing shuts down any admissions regarding fraud accusations related to the $274,000. Yet, it directly contests how the agencies overreached their authority during the seizure of what they assert were legitimate funds. The ongoing legal battle serves as a crucial case concerning civil asset forfeiture and the balance of enforcement authority. It challenges common practices in the pursuit of alleged fraud, highlighting vital ethical and legal questions about the extent of power held by such offices.
As this complex case unfolds, it could impact future precedent in how financial crimes, particularly those related to urgent relief measures, are investigated and prosecuted by regional and federal bodies alike. Potentially reshaping approaches nationwide, the case calls for close observation from both legal experts and the public.
