before the Court it is unable to conclude as a matter of law that the defendant aircraft was “involved in a transaction in violation of section ... 1957 ... or ... traceable to [the funds illegally obtained].” 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A). The aircraft was clearly paid for prior to the commencement of Dr. Howard’s fraudulent activities. And, although it was used by Dr. Howard to obtain his personal loan, it is not clear the loan’s proceeds were used to pay the mortgage on the St. Joe, Florida property. In any event, it seems apparent, absent further briefing on the issue, that because the airplane was paid for with legitimately acquired funds, the value of the plane associated to those funds are not subject to forfeiture by the government. United States v. Loe, 49 F.Supp.2d at 523 (<HOLDING>). The Court therefore cannot conclude, on the
holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that because the recipient of funds had a contractual obligation to immediately transfer them he was not an initial transferee under  550 even though the funds were eventually used to purchase stock in his name holding that interest received by a foreign corporation on a tax refund from the united states was interest on an interestbearing obligation of a resident of the united states within income tax statute holding that because 526 of the purchase funds were tainted property  the united states interest was limited to this portion holding that to establish a money laundering offense the laundering of funds cannot occur in the same transaction through which those funds first become tainted by crime