financial stake.” United States v. 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir.2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. $148,840 in U.S. Currency, 521 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir.2008); United States v. One Lincoln Navigator, 328 F.3d 1011, 1013 (8th Cir.2003). While a variety of types of property interests in defendant assets thus may confer standing upon a claimant, “[t]he federal courts have consistently held that unsecured creditors do not have standing to challenge the civil forfeiture of their debtors’ property.” United States v. One-Sixth Share, 326 F.3d 36, 41 (1st Cir.2003) (citing United States v. $20,193.39, 16 F.3d 344, 346 (9th Cir.1994)); see also United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., 46 F.3d 1185, 1191 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The nature of a claimant’s asserted property
holding in a forfeiture action brought pursuant to 18 usc  1961 1968 that a general creditor can never have an interest in specific forfeited property holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property holding that a wifes interest in property has priority over a general creditor