govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_15-cv-00675-95

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 
 Plaintiff, 
 v. 
IFTIKAR AHMED, 
 Defendant, and  
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED 
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI 
AHMED 2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY 
TRUST; DIYA HOLDINGS LLC; DIYA REAL 
HOLDINGS, LLC; I.I. 1, a minor child, by and 
through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI 
AHMED, his parents; I.I. 2, a minor child, by and 
through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI 
AHMED, his parents; and I.I. 3, a minor child, by 
and through his next friends IFTIKAR and 
SHALINI AHMED, his parents,    
 Relief Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA) 
 
June 9, 2023 
 
ORDER DENYING RELIEF DEFENDANT SHALINI AHMED’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A 
RELEASE OF FUNDS TO RETAIN COUNSEL TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 
AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
The Court assumes familiarity with the underlying litigation and Order to Show 
Cause. (See Order Granting SEC’s Mot. for Order to Show Cause [Doc. # 2471] .) Relief 
Defendant Shalini Ahmed moves [Doc. # 2473] for a release of funds of up to $150,000 1 to 
 
1 Ms. Ahmed failed to provide any itemized details justifying the specific amount requested. 
Because the Court is denying the request, there is no need to require details of the amount 
requested. 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2505     Filed 06/09/23     Page 1 of 4
retain legal counsel to represent her in respon ding to the Court’s Order to Show Cause why 
she and Defendant Iftikar Ahmed should not be held in civil contempt based on their efforts 
to have a Connecticut family court enter a dissolution agreement as part of their divorce 
proceedings, which the SEC claims affects assets subject to the asset freeze and Receivership 
established by this Court. (Order at 1.)2 
Ms. Ahmed asserts  that the Order to Show Cause raises unusual and complex legal 
issues which she cannot respond to pro se. (Mot. for Funds at 2-3.) In their opposition briefs, 
the SEC [Doc. # 2480] and Receiver [Doc. # 2476] argue a) that Ms. Ahmed has failed to 
demonstrate that she needs a release of funds to hire counsel; b) that that the release of funds 
would cause a larger portion of the judgment to go unsatisfied; and c) that Ms. Ahmed is not 
in need of counsel for this proceeding. (SEC’s Opp’n at 9-13, Receiver’s Opp’n at 3-7.) 
I. Discussion 
In their oppositions, the SEC and Receiver note that Ms. Ahmed appears to be paying 
for her children’s’ private school tuition and regular flights to India. (Receiver’s Opp’n at 5; 
SEC’s Opp’n at 11). Ms. Ahmed had previously requested the release of $151,000 from the 
Receivership Estate to pay pr ivate school tuition, which th e Court denied. [Doc. # 2250.] In 
her Reply, Ms. Ahmed acknowledge s that she has paid this  private school tuition, but to do 
so represents she “has begged people for loans to help her to keep the minor children’s lives 
stable” and that she is doing “the best for her three minor children[. ]” (Ms. Ahmed’s Reply 
[Doc. # 2482] at 4.) She similarly concedes she has paid for family trips to India, but laments 
that the asset freeze has  prevented the minor children from going to India “whenever they 
want.” (Id. at 4.)  She argues that focus on these expen ditures is “irrelevant” because “the 
 
2 In her Mot ion for Reconsideration on the briefing schedule [Doc. # 2489], Ms. Ahmed 
requests a minimum of thirty days between a ruling on her motion and the deadline for 
written show cause why she should not be held in contempt. However, Ms. Ahmed has been 
aware of her need to prepare a written response to the Order to Show Cause since the Court 
issued the Order to Show Cause on April 13, 2023. Thus, reconsideration is denied. 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2505     Filed 06/09/23     Page 2 of 4
parties and the Court are well aware that no one will loan Ms. Ahmed any amount for 
attorney’s fees, which she has consistently made clear in this pr oceeding and which she 
specifically noted in her Motion[. ]” (Id.) (emphasis in original .)3 She offers no 
substantiation—only her offer to  provide an affidavit upon request attesting to her financial 
need, rather than the submission of such an affidavit with her briefing. (Id.) 
The Court finds that Ms. Ahmed has failed to credibly argue that she needs  a release 
of funds to retain an attorney . Her conclusory statements to the contrary are ineffective to 
justify fur ther depleting of the Receivership estate . It is the Court’s responsibility to 
“preserv[e] the integrity of [the] disputed assets to ensure that such assets are not 
squandered by one party to the potential detriment of another.” FSLIC v. Ferm., 909 F.2d 372, 
372 (9th Cir. 1990). Ms. Ahmed appears to have access to significant funds to keep the minor 
children in private schools and to pay for frequent international travel, despite Ms. Ahmed 
having previously sought the release of frozen funds for both purposes. [Docs. ## 478, 2166-
2]. As such, Ms. Ahmed fails to demonstrate a need for the release of funds. S ee Fed. Trade 
Comm'n v. Cardiff, No. CV5182104SJOPLAX, 2019 WL 7945584, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2019) 
(denying a motion to release funds for living expenses when the court was “not satisfied the 
Defendants have disclosed all assets at their disposal” and “Defendants appear to have access 
to numerous undisclosed” sources of income.) 
Ms. Ahmed cites to Dole Fresh Fruit Co. v. United B anana Co., 821 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 
1987) for the proposition that a defendant is entitled to counsel in civil contempt 
proceedings. (Ms. Ahmed’s Reply at 6.) But regardless of whether Ms. Ahmed has a right to 
counsel, that does not necessitate a release of funds if she has failed to show actual financial 
need. Ms. Ahmed’s assertions that this matter involves particularly complex legal issues are 
also not demonstrated at this stage . The Court will  initially focus on the impact of the ir 
 
3 Ms. Ahmed also notes that she has credit card debt and highlights that the Court has not 
increased the releases for living expenses in eight years. (Ms. Ahmed ’s Reply at 4 -5.) 
However, Ms. Ahmed has not requested an increase in living expenses allowance. 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2505     Filed 06/09/23     Page 3 of 4
Dissolution Agreement on the Receiver. It is not evident that this subject implicates complex 
legal questions that Ms. Ahmed cannot address. 
II. Conclusion 
Relief Defendant Shalini Ahmed’s Motion for a Release of Funds to Retain Counsel to 
Respond to the Order to Show Cause AND Motion for Reconsideration are DENIED. The 
hearing on the Order to Show Cause is rescheduled for July 7, 2023 at 1pm in Courtroom 2. 
Defendant Iftikar Ahmed and Relief Defendant Shalini Ahmed shall  show cause why they  
should not be held in contempt for seeking to obtain state court approval of their Dissolution 
Agreement, in writing, by June  20, 2023. The SEC and Receiver shall file their responses by 
June 27, 2023. Any reply shall be filed by July 5, 2023. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 ________________/s/___________________________ 
 
 Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. 
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 9th day of June, 2023 
 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2505     Filed 06/09/23     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight