ST. CROIX — The U.S. Attorney’s Office has filed its opposition to a motion for the return of $10,000 worth of kitchen equipment seized from a St. Thomas restaurant leased by former Police Commissioner Ray Martinez as part of a criminal investigation alleging bribery, conspiracy, and wire fraud, according to District Court documents.
FBI agents seized a commercial kitchen hood system, side curtains, a fire suppression system, and wall panels on December 16 from Don Felito’s Cookshop. Martinez, Don Felito’s principal, leased the property at the base of Raphune Hill in July 2022, where signage for the not-yet-opened restaurant has been erected.
The seizure followed a warrant authorized by Magistrate Judge G. Alan Teague citing the equipment was subject to criminal forfeiture concerning the alleged violations of federal laws. The details of the alleged criminal activity, however, have not yet been made public as the FBI affidavit filed in support of the seizure warrant remains under seal.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office, in its opposition to a motion for the return of the kitchen equipment filed Tuesday in the District Court, Division of St. Thomas/St. John, argued that an analysis of four factors to this case compels a finding that Don Felito’s is not entitled to a return of the kitchen equipment.
The first factor weighs in favor of denying the motion for return of the equipment because the government has not displayed a callous disregard for the constitutional rights of the tenant, Martinez, according to the government’s opposition to the motion. The U.S. Attorney’s Office argued that the second factor weighs in its favor because the government’s interest in the equipment is superior to any interest Martinez may have in the property.
In considering the third factor regarding whether Martinez would be irreparably injured by denying return of the property, the government argued Martinez is not a bona fide purchaser for value of the equipment. Therefore, the government argued he cannot show he would be irreparably injured by denying return of the property. The government noted the FBI affidavit sets forth probable cause for the basis to seize the equipment, and Martinez is not entitled to benefit from the use of any ill-gotten gains.
The fourth factor, which considers whether Martinez has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance, also weighs in favor of denying the motion for return of the equipment, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Attorney Michael Sheesley, who represents Martinez, filed a motion on December 17 to have the equipment returned, arguing that the seizure was improperly conducted. He alleged that the government’s actions were intended to “embarrass” Martinez for refusing to accept a preindictment plea deal. In the filing, he indicated the U.S. government sent a half dozen FBI agents, armed with automatic rifles and body armor, to the property in the early morning hours to make a spectacle of the seizure. He also claimed the operation caused water damage to the building by leaving a leaking hole in the roof after removing the kitchen hood system.
The Puerto Rico-based attorney contends that the government failed to notify the owner of the leased property, KAC Properties LLC, and did not provide alternatives, such as bond, to avoid a physical seizure of the equipment. He declined to comment in response to the government’s opposition to his motion, noting that he needed an opportunity to review the government’s opposition. He said he would respond with his own court filing.
By request of Governor Albert Bryan Jr., Martinez resigned as police commissioner in June after being implicated in an ongoing federal investigation.
READ MORE: “Police Commissioner Ray Martinez officially resigns; Government House discusses ‘miscommunication’”
In September, David Whitaker, a former Virgin Islands Police Department contractor, pleaded guilty to bribery charges, admitting to paying thousands of dollars and providing gifts to an unnamed police official.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office, represented by U.S. Attorney Delia Smith and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Conley, requested the court deny the motion for return of the kitchen equipment based on consideration of the four factors.
Should the government bring criminal charges in the future, the office noted the charging document would include a notice to forfeit the kitchen equipment. If such charges are brought in the future, Martinez will have adequate opportunity to assert his “innocent owner” interest in the kitchen hood system at that time.
With respect to a property interest acquired after the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture has taken place, the term “innocent owner” means a person who, at the time of acquiring the interest in the property, was a bona fide purchaser or seller for value and did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture.
