NEWS ROOM

DCCS Members Prevail in Years Long Challenge to Government Forfeiture Claims Tied to Bio-Fuel Case

August 2, 2026

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah – On July 21, 2026, Chief United States District Judge Jill N. Parrish granted the U.S. government's proposal to remove 32 properties from the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture in United States v. Kingston. The properties include residential homes, business properties and assets at the former Washakie Renewable Energy (WRE) plant in Plymouth, Utah. The judge's order states that those properties are no longer subject to forfeiture in the case.

The WRE criminal case involved a renewable-fuel tax-credit fraud scheme in which the IRS paid more than $511 million on fraudulent claims. Several WRE principals pleaded guilty in 2019 and were sentenced in 2023. The third-party property owners challenging the forfeiture were not defendants in the WRE criminal case.[2]

The federal investigation included February 2016 raids on multiple residential and commercial properties publicly associated with the Davis County Cooperative Society (DCCS). Contemporary reporting stated that federal agents served sealed search warrants at several locations and that Department of Justice personnel confirmed federal law-enforcement activity. [3]

In 2019, federal prosecutors gave notice of their intent to forfeit properties they alleged were connected to the WRE case. More than a dozen third parties later challenged forfeiture of their homes, businesses, land and other assets, maintaining that their property interests were not proceeds of WRE's fraudulent activity. According to DCCS, some residential property owners were DCCS members, and some of the affected businesses were owned by DCCS members. [4]

Although federal prosecutors initially gave notice of their intent to forfeit properties in 2019, the court did not enter their Preliminary Order of Forfeiture until March 24, 2023. Other delays occurred throughout the case until January 8, 2026, the United States and the residential petitioners agreed that the government would not seek forfeiture of their property interests. [5]

The United States requested removal of the properties

U.S. Attorney Melissa Holyoak and Assistant U.S. Attorney Travis K. Elder filed the amended motion requesting removal of the properties on behalf of the United States. The petitioners did not object. Explaining its decision after discovery, the government stated: [6]

Since it has engaged the petitioners identified in this motion in discovery regarding their various interests, the United States has determined that the Subject Properties should be removed from the POF. [6] - Amended Motion, ECF No. 1837, paragraph 7
What Judge Parrish's order provides

THE COURT'S RULING

Before the Court is the government's Amended Motion to Amend Preliminary Order of Forfeiture to Remove Certain Properties. (ECF 1837.) The petitioners do not object to the motion. The motion is GRANTED. [1]
By this order, the United States' forfeiture claims to the Subject Properties are withdrawn and it is relinquishing any and all rights, claims, or interests it may have or could assert in the Subject Properties and in any liens, mortgages, deeds of trust, security interests, or other encumbrances related to those properties that arise from or related to the criminal case or the forfeiture proceedings. Further, the United States will not assert, directly or indirectly, in this or any future proceeding (including any administrative, civil, or bankruptcy proceeding), that any such lien, mortgage, or security interest held by any petitioner is subject to forfeiture, constitutes proceeds of the criminal activity alleged in the Indictment or Superseding Indictments, or is otherwise unenforceable because it is subject to forfeiture in this criminal case. [1] - Order, ECF No. 1839, page 5

The court's order also directs the United States to withdraw all pending litigation filed against the Subject Properties and terminates the post-indictment restraining order relating to the Plymouth Plant.

DCCS Press Response:

"We have said from the beginning that the defendants in the WRE case broke from DCCS tradition in many ways. DCCS members, as a whole, find fraudulent activity to be repugnant, immoral, and contrary to our core beliefs and values. We continue to stress to our members our strong condemnation of the actions admitted to in the WRE case.

We have asserted all along our confidence that the ongoing court proceedings and judicial process would show that any fraudulent activity was limited to a few bad actors and did not represent the DCCS as a whole.

We are pleased that the court has found in favor of the property owners who were unfairly and improperly targeted because of their association with the DCCS."

Source notes

[1] Order Amending Preliminary Order of Forfeiture to Remove Certain Property, United States v. Kingston, No. 2:18-cr-00365-JNP, ECF No. 1839, at 1-5 (D. Utah July 21, 2026).

[2] U.S. Department of Justice, Los Angeles Businessman, Utah Fuel Plant Operators and Employees Sentenced to Prison for Billion-Dollar Biofuel Tax Fraud Scheme (Apr. 7, 2023).

[3] KUTV, Police raid Utah properties of well-known polygamist Kingston Clan (Feb. 10, 2016); see also KUTV, Kingston polygamist group could lose hundreds of millions in assets to federal seizure (July 19, 2019).

[4] DCCS, Government files forfeiture action against properties with alleged ties to WRE (Aug. 2, 2019); KUTV/AP, Prosecutors move to seize property linked to Washakie Renewable Energy (Jan. 23, 2019).

[5] Amended Motion to Amend Preliminary Order of Forfeiture to Remove Certain Properties, United States v. Kingston, No. 2:18-cr-00365-JNP, ECF No. 1837, paragraphs 1 and 3-6, at 1 and 3-6 (D. Utah filed July 21, 2026).

[6] Id. paragraph 7, at 6. The signature block identifies U.S. Attorney Melissa Holyoak and Assistant U.S. Attorney Travis K. Elder; Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard M. Rolwing appears in the counsel listing.

[7] Id. paragraph 10, at 6-7.

[8] Compare ECF No. 1837, paragraph 7, at 6 (describing proposed relief as including a requirement to "hold one another harmless"), with ECF No. 1839, at 5 (omitting that language and requiring each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees).

[9] ECF No. 1837, paragraph 2, at 2-3; ECF No. 1839, at 2-5.

Copyright © Davis County Cooperative Society

DCCSOCIETY.ORG is prepared and maintained by members of the DCCS for the use of its members.

The views expressed are the opinion of the individual contributors and are not necessarily the official position of the Davis County Cooperative Society, DCCSOCIETY.ORG NEWS LLC or its owners.

© 2026 DCCSOCIETY.ORG