in reliance thereon and (4) unjust enrichment.” Counihan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 F.3d 357, 362 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119, 121, 386 N.Y.S.2d 72, 351 N.E.2d 721 (1976)). The Watts Petitioners, could not and do not assert that they should be the beneficiaries of a constructive trust. Moreover, the facts of this case do not support recognizing a constructive trust for the benefit of the Watts Petitioners pursuant to New York law. Additionally, third-party petitioners cannot possibly establish a pre-existing interest in property adjudged- to be the proceeds of crime because criminal proceeds, and the government’s vested interest therein, necessarily only come into existence once a crime occurs. See United States v. Hooper, 229 F.3d 818, 821-22 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Timley, 507 F.3d at 1130 (“As- the
holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder holding that section 853n6a is likely never to apply to proceeds of the crime given that the proceeds cannot exist before commission of the crime holding the real estate sale proceeds holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate