--- title: "Claimants’ Arguments Address the Weight of the Government’s Experts’ Statements" meta: "og:description": "Assertions that expert testimony is based upon unfounded assumptions go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the testimony" "og:title": "Claimants’ Arguments Address the Weight of the Government’s Experts’ Statements" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "Assertions that expert testimony is based upon unfounded assumptions go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the testimony" --- # Claimants’ Arguments Address the Weight of the Government’s Experts’ Statements Posted on January 16, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler On March 2, 2022, President Biden instructed the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to seize the assets of wealthy Russians as part of his administration’s response to the Russian operations in Ukraine. Specifically, the Government sought forfeiture of the M/Y Amadea, International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) No. 1012531, including all fixtures, fittings, manuals, stocks, stores, inventories, and each lifeboat, tender, and other appurtenance thereto (the “Amadea”). Eduard Yurievich Khudainatov commissioned the building of the Amadea in or about 2012. Khudainatov put the Amadea on the market in 2018, but due to its unique style and the Covid pandemic, it never sold. In addition, Khudainatov received and rejected offers to buy the Amadea at prices he considered too low. In a civil _in rem_ forfeiture action, the moving party—here, the government—has the burden of proof to show why the Court should order the property sold. The government retained [Captain Sean P. Meagher](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Sean-Meagher/1562221) to opine on the M/Y Amadea and practices aboard the Amadea while [Anders Åslund](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Anders-Aslund/1562220) was engaged to shed light on the “the estimated historical and current net worth of Russian businessman Eduard Khudainatov and the business activities that generated his wealth.” Eduard Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments, Ltd. (collectively, ‘Claimants’) sought to exclude the testimony of Anders Åslund and Sean P. Meagher. Claimants put forth arguments attacking, _inter alia_, the experts’ qualifications, the evidentiary basis for their opinions, and the propriety and usefulness of those opinions. ## **Economics Expert Witness** [Anders Åslund](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Anders-Aslund/1562220) is a leading specialist on Eastern European economies, especially Russia and Ukraine. He was a Professor of International Economics and the founding Director of the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics at the Stockholm School of Economics from 1989-94. [Want to know more about the challenges Anders Åslund has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1562220) ## **Maritime Expert Witness** [Sean P. Meagher](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Sean-Meagher/1562221) is a managing partner of Marinus Vectors, a company founded by senior professionals in maritime, intelligence, special operations, and international industries. He attended the Naval honors school Tabor Academy, pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, and continued his education at Massachusetts Maritime Academy. [Discover more cases with Sean Meagher as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1562221) ## **Discussion by the Court** Here, Claimants asked this Court to perform its “gatekeeping role,” by excluding the Government’s experts’ testimony. However, upon careful review of Claimants’ submissions, the Court found that Claimants’ arguments go to the weight, and not the admissibility, of the Government’s experts’ statements.  To the extent that Claimants wish to challenge the reliability of the Government’s experts, the Court held that they may do so via, _inter alia_, “vigorous cross-examination” and by “presenting contrary evidence.” The proceeding for which Claimants sought to exclude these experts’ testimony is an evidentiary hearing to resolve the Government’s motion to strike for lack of standing. In this proceeding, the Court will be the factfinder; there is no jury. It is well established that, in such a proceeding, the trial court’s gatekeeping role is relaxed, and expert evidence should generally be admitted subject to a later finding by the Court that the evidence is not reliable under [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.).  At this point, however, the Court will reserve judgment on the substance of the arguments raised in Claimants’ motions _in limine_ with respect to the Government’s experts. ## **Held** The Court denied without prejudice Claimants’ motions _in limine_ with respect to Anders Åslund and Sean Meagher. ## **Key Takeaway:** Disagreements over the strength of an expert’s credentials, faults in the expert’s methodology, or the “lack of textual authority” for the expert’s opinion, “go to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony.” Claimants make arguments of this nature in their motions _in limine_. And such arguments are not enough to overcome the fact that the Government’s experts’ testimony facially meets the criteria outlined in Rule 702.  ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Corrections Expert's Standard of Care Testimony Admitted](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-23T161938.085.jpg) [**Corrections Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/claimants-arguments-address-the-weight-of-the-governments-experts-statements/corrections-experts-standard-of-care-testimony-admitted)![Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T200052.311.jpg) [**Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/claimants-arguments-address-the-weight-of-the-governments-experts-statements/human-resources-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-termination)![Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T144728.528.jpg) [**Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/claimants-arguments-address-the-weight-of-the-governments-experts-statements/neuropsychology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-cognitive-decline)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/claimants-arguments-address-the-weight-of-the-governments-experts-statements/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/claimants-arguments-address-the-weight-of-the-governments-experts-statements/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)