DOJ Publication
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FORFEITURE PROCEDURE

Table of Contents

Part I - Civil Forfeiture

I. The Nature of Civil Forfeiture- - - - - - - - - - - 1

II. Seizure of Property for Civil Forfeiture- - - - - - - 1

A. Standard for seizure- - - - - - - - - - - 2

B. Warrantless seizures- - - - - - - - - - - - 2

    1. Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment- - - - - - - -2

C. The probable cause standard- - - - - - - - - - - 3

D. Out-of-district seizure warrants- - - - - - - - - - -5

E. Anticipatory seizure warrants- - - - - - - - - - - 5

F. Appeals - - - - - - - - - - - 5

    1. Government may appeal denial of application for seizure warrant- - - - 5

    2. Issuance of seizure warrant is not appealable- - - - - - - - - 5

G. Seizure of particular kinds of property- - - - - - - 6

    1. Real property- - - - - - - - - - - - 6

    2. Bank accounts - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

H. Remedy for illegal seizure - suppression of evidence- - - - - - 6

    1. The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture cases- - 6

    2. But the claimant/owner may lack standing to contest the seizure- - - - - - 7

    3. Although the illegal seizure of the res that is the subject of in rem forfeiture may require suppression of evidence, it does not require dismissal of the forfeiture complaint- - -7

    4. Although the res itself may not be used to establish grounds for forfeiture, forfeiture may be established with independently derived evidence- - - - - - 8

    5. But if the Government has no other evidence to support the forfeiture - - - 9

    6. Collateral estoppel on suppression issues- - - - - - - 9

I. Motion for return of property pending trial based on illegal seizure- - - - - - 10

    1. In general, the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 41 (e) motion for return of seized property once forfeiture is commenced- - - - - - 10

    2. But some courts hold that a claimant is entitled to a post-seizure, pretrial probable cause hearing- - - - - - - - - - - - - 11

    3. Most courts, however, exercise anomalous jurisdiction over a Rule 41(g) motion only in special circumstances- - - - - - - - - - - - - 11

    4. Whether courts will continue to exercise anomalous jurisdiction to consider Rule 41(g) motions under CAFRA is unclear- - - - - - - - - - - 13

    5. Inclusion of property in a criminal indictment - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14

    6. Criminal court lacks jurisdiction to grant Rule 41(g) motion when civil forfeiture is pending - - - 14

    7. Court lacks jurisdiction over property seized by state - - - - - 14

J. Motion for pretrial release of seized property to avoid hardship - - - - - - - - - 15

K. Maintaining evidentiary value of seized property - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15

III. Administrative Forfeiture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 15

A. Overview - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16

    1. Reasons for administrative forfeiture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16

    2. Property eligible for administrative forfeiture - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16

    3. Summary of administrative forfeiture procedure - - - - - - - - - - - - 17

B.Jurisdiction17

C. Time for sending notice - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17

D. Manner of sending notice - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18

    1. Constitutional and statutory standards - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18

    2. It is not necessary that the written notice actually be received - - - - - - - 18

    3. But if notice is returned undelivered - - - - - - - - - - . .. - - - - 20

    4. Actual notice comports with due process - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20

    5. Service of notice on attorney - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21

    6. Service of notice in English - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 22

E. Special rules for sending notice to prisoners - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22

    1. Government must attempt to serve prisoners at their place of incarceration - - - - - 22

F. Person entitled to receive notice - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 23

G. Content of notice - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 24

H. Time for filing claim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 25

I. Cost bond - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25

J. Declaration of forfeiture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 25

K. Destruction of evidence - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 25

L. Unilateral decision not to pursue forfeiture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 25

    1. Quick release policy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 25

    2. Attorney's fees - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26

    3. Storage costs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 26

IV. Judicial Review of Administrative Forfeiture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26

A. Scope of review - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26

    3. Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29

B. Statutory basis for review - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29

    1. Section 983(e) - - -29

    2. Causes of action for equitable relief - - - - - - - - - - - - 29

    3. Claimant may not use Federal Tort Claims Act - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30

    4. Motion to dismiss due process claim - - - - - - - - - - - - 31

    5. Time to respond to due process claim - - - - - - - - - - - - 31

C. Statute of limitations on due process challenge - - - - - - - - - - 31

    1. Section 983(e)(3) - - -31

    2. Claimant had 6 years to file a challenge - - - - - - - - - - 31

    3. The Second and Third Circuits - - - - - - - - - - - - 32

    4. Courts are reluctant to allow laches - - - - - - - - - - - - 33

D. Subject matter jurisdiction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34

E. Burden of proof - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35

F. Mootness - - - 35

G. Venue for motion for return of seized property - - - - - - - - - - 35

H. Standing - - - 35

    2. Pre-CAFRA cases - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36

I. Merits of section 983(e) challenge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36

J. Remedy for failure to provide adequate notice - - - - - - - - - - 36

    2. Pre-CAFRA law - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36

    3. Courts were divided as to what would happen if the statute of limitations barred the Government from filing a new forfeiture action - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37

    4. Equitable tolling - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38

    5. Even if Government cannot refile forfeiture case, return of property is not automatic - - - - 39

    6. Compensatory damages not available - - - - - - - - - - - - 39

    7. If the Government has already sold the property - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40

    8. Federal Government is not liable for seizures by state and local police - - - - - - - - 40

V. Adoptive Forfeitures - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .40

A. Adopting a state forfeiture is proper - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40

B. State turnover orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40

    1. Some states have laws requiring local officials to seek a turnover order - - - - - - - - 40

    2. A federal agency may adopt the forfeiture notwithstanding a violation of state law - - - - 40

    3. The federal agency must nevertheless have in rem jurisdiction over the property - - - - 41

C. Time limits on adoptive forfeitures - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41

    1. Section 983(a)(1)(A)(iv) - - -41

    2. Statute of limitations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41

    3. United States' 30-day policy on adoptions - - - - - - - - - - 41

VI. Seizure and Forfeiture of Real Property- - - - - - -. 42

A. Section 985 - - - - 42

    3. Sanction for failure to comply with section 985(c) - - - - - -42

B. Fifth Amendment due process- - - - - - - - - - - - - 42

    2. Government may file lis pendens and obtain a writ of entry - - - - - - - - 42

    4. Government nolonger needs to obtain an arrest warrant in rem- - - - - - - -44

C. Seizure of business - - - - - - - - - - 44

    1. Government may not seize a business ex parte without hearing- - - - - - - -44

    2. Government may be required to make arrangements to continue business in operation- - - - - - 44

D. Personal property- - - - - - - - - - - 44

E. Exigent circumstances- - - - - - - - - - 45

    1. No hearing is required before the court issues a warrant- - - - - - - - 45

    2.  Prompt post-seizure hearing- - - - - - - - - - - -.46

    3. Remedy for seizure without exigent circumstances- - - - - -.46

    4. Remedy for failure to establish probable cause at the section 985( e) hearing- - - - 46

F. Issues at Good hearing- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46

    1. Probable cause- - - - - - - - - - 46

    2. CAFRA codified Good at section 985(d)(l)(B) - - - - - - -.47

G. Interlocutory appeal- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47

H. Remedy for Good violation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47

    1. The Eighth Circuit requires dismissal of the forfeiture case- - - - - - - - - 48

    2. The majority rule is that the claimant is entitled to return of rents and profits- - - - 48

    3. Disgorgement of rents/compensatory damages- - - - - - -48

    4. Rule 60(b) motion may be used as the vehicle- - - - - - - 50

VII. Pretrial Restraining Orders- - - - - - - - - - - - -. 50

VIII. Judicial Forfeiture: Claim, Complaint, and Claim & Answer- - - - - - - 50

A. Filing a claim in the administrative forfeiture proceeding - 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2) - - - - - 50

    1. A claim must be filed by the date specified- - - - - - - - 50

TEXT OF PART I  - pages 51-100 - in PDF format

    2. The claim is "filed" on the date it is received by the seizing agency- - - - - 51

    3. The claim must identify the property being claimed- - - - - - - - - - 51

    4. The cost bond is abolished- - - - - - - - - - - - 51

    5. Fifth Amendment issues- - - - - - - - - - - - - 51

B. Time for filing a complaint: 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3) - - - - - - - - 52

    1. The Government has 90 days from the filing of the claim- - - - - - - - 52

    2. The 90 days begins to run from the date the claim is received- - - - - - - - 52

    3. If there is a bona fide dispute- - - - - - - - - - 52

    4. Under pre-CAFRA law, there was no filing deadline- - - - - - - - - 52

    5. Under 21 U.S.C. §888(c) (repealed), the Government had 60 days- - - - - - - 54

    6. The Government has the option of switching to criminal forfeiture- - - - - - - 54

C. Arrest warrants in rem-Rule (C)(2) - - - - - - - - - - - - 55

    1. At the time a complaint is filed, the court issues a warrant for the arrest of the property- - - 55

    2. "Forthwith" requirement-Rule E(4) - - - - - - - - - - 55

    3. Service of process- - - - - - - - - - - - - 56

D. Jurisdiction - - - - - - - - - - - - 56

    1. Subject matter jurisdiction- - - - - - - - - - - - 56

    2. In rem jurisdiction- - - - - - - - - - - - - 57

    3. Intangible property- - - - - - - - - - - - -58

    4. Adoptive forfeitures and concurrent jurisdiction - - - - - - - 58

    5. In rem jurisdiction over property located abroad- - - - - 60

    6. Retroactive application of amendments to section 1355- - - - - - - - 61

    7. Court does not lose in rem jurisdiction - - - - - - - - 61

    8. Conversion of cash to another form- - - - - - - - - - 61

E.Venue - - - - - - - - - - - - - 62

    1. District where the crime occurred- - - - - - - - - - 62

    2. Change of venue - - - - - - - - - - 62

    3. Property located abroad- - - - - - - - - - - - - 62

F. Contents of the complaint- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63

    1. Standard for filing a complaint- - - - - - - - - - -63

    2. Purpose of the particularity requirement- - - - - - - - 64

    3. Enforcement of the particularity requirement- - - - - - 65

    4. Examples of complaints found to satisfy the reasonable belief standard- - - - 65

    5. Complaint had to be dismissed if the Government did not have probable cause at the time the complaint was filed- - - - - - - - - - - - - 66

    6. Section 983(a)(3)(D) legislatively overrules these cases- - - - - - - - 67

    7. It is not necessary to identify specific transactions in the complaint- - - - - 67

    8. Complaint need not negate an affirmative defense- - - - - -68

    9. Alleging multiple legal theories- - - - - - - - - - - 68

    10. Including facts in motion for summary judgment- - - - - -68

    11. Government is not required to identify the portion of the property traceable to money laundering- - - - - - - - - - - - 68

    12. Pleading particular legal theories- - - - - - - - - - 69

    13. Application of Rule 9(b) - - - - - - - - - - - 69

G. Motion to dismiss the complaint- - - - - - - - - - - 70

    1. Standard for surviving motion to dismiss- - - - - - - - 70

    2. Forfeitability is determined at the time of trial- - - - - - - - - - - 70

    3. Complaint may not be dismissed sua sponte- - - - - - 71

    4. Motion to dismiss should be denied where complaint, on its face, satisfies probable cause requirement- - - - - - - - - - - - 71

    5. Evidence outside the pleadings- - - - - - - - - - - 71

    6. Cases where motion to dismiss granted- - - - - - - - - 72

    7. Eighth Amendment grounds- - - - - - - - - - - - 72

    8. Government's motion to dismiss its own complaint- - - - - - 73

H. Amending the complaint- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -73

I. Claim and answer- - - - - - - - - - - -73

    1. Time for filing claim- - - - - - - - - - - - 73

    2. Claim must be verified- - - - - - - - - - - - 74

    3. Claim must identify the claimant- - - - - - - - - - -75

    4. Claim must state nature of claimant's interest- - - - - - 75

    5. Claim filed by bailee must identify bailor - - - - - - - 75

    6. Claim filed in administrative forfeiture is no substitute- - - - - 75

    7. Court has discretion to waive requirements of Rule C(6) - - - - - - - - 76

    8. Pro se claims- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 76

    9. Excusable neglect- - - - - - - - - - - - - 77

    10. Fifth Amendment issues- - - - - - - - - - - 77

    11. Answer- - - - - - - - - - - -77

    12. Failure to comply with Rule C - - - - - - - - - - -78

IX. Dispositive Pretrial Motions- - - - - - - - - - - 80

A. Fugitive disentitlement doctrine- - - - - - - - - - - 80

    1. Before CAFRA, a fugitive in a related criminal case was not barred - - - - - - 80

    2. CAFRA reinstates the fugitive disentitlement doctrine- - - - - 80

    3. Required elements of section 2466 - - - - - - - - - - 80

    4. Retroactive application of section 2466 - - - - - - - - - 80

    5. Civil case must be related to a pending criminal prosecution- - - - - - - 81

    6. Notice of the criminal proceedings- - - - - - - - - - 81

    7. The related criminal case can be either state or federal- - - - - 81

    8. Fleeing or evading the jurisdiction of the court - - - - - - - 81

    9. Fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to corporations- - - - - - - - 81

B. Default judgment - - - - - - - - - - - - 81

C. Statute of limitations- - - - - - - - - - - 82

    1. The limitations period for civil forfeiture actions is specified in 19 U.S.C. § 1621 - - -82

    2. The limitations period runs from the date of the discovery of the offense- - - - - 82

    3. The key date is when federal agents became aware of the offense- - - - - - 82

    4. Prior to CAFRA, the courts were divided- - - - - - - - 83

    5. CAFRA resolved this issue-section 1621 now contains two limitations periods- - 83

    6. When there is a continuing course of conduct, the limitations period starts anew- - - 83

    7. Interplay of section 1621 and 1-year limit under section 984 - - - - - - - - -84

    8. Statute of limitations is an affirmative defense- - - - - - - 84

    9. Statute of limitations is tolled during period when the claimant is a fugitive- - - 85

    10. Statute of limitations is tolled while forfeiture is barred- - - - - - - - - 85

    11. Statute of limitations is tolled while property is concealed or absent- - - - - - 85

    12. Property located abroad is "absent" - - - - - - - - - - 86

X. Pretrial Procedural Issues - - - - - - - - - - -86

A. Discovery - - - - - - - - - - - 86

    1. Protective orders- - - - - - - - - - - - 86

    2. Informants - - - - - - - - - 86

    3. Request for admissions- - - - - - - - - - - 86

    4. Claimant not entitled to take deposition of AUSA - - - - 87

    5. Sanctions for failure to comply with discovery- - - - - - - - -87

    6. Perjury during discovery- .- - - - - - - - - - - - 87

B. Stay of civil forfeiture pending criminal case- - - - - - - - - 88

    1. Section 981 (g) - - - - - - - - - 88

    2. Only a claimant may seek a stay- - - - - - - - - - - 88

    4. Pre-CAFRA cases granting stay to avoid Fifth Amendment problems- - - - - - 89

    5. Pre-CAFRA cases denying stay despite Fifth Amendment problems- - - - - 89

    7. Conclusory allegations of impact on criminal case do not constitute "good cause" - - - 90

    8. Stay denied where it would result in indefinite delay- - - - - - - - - 90

    9. Government's appeal from denial of stay- - - - - - - - -90

C. Interlocutory sale- - - - - - - - - - - - 90

    1. Property may be sold to avoid deterioration- - - - - - - - 90

    2. Mortgage foreclosure- - - - - - - - - - - - - -91

D. Immunity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 91

E. Civil restraining orders- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 91

F. Appointment of counsel- - - - - - - - - - 92

XI. Forfeitability: Nexus Between the Property and the Offense- - - - - - - - -. 92

A. Pre-CAFRA law-the probable cause standard- - - - - - - - 93

    1. Probable cause for forfeiture is tested by the same criteria- - - - - - - - - 93

    2. Government must have "reasonable grounds" - - - - - - 93

    3. Hearsay admissible to show probable cause- - - - - - - - 94

B. Proceeds cases- - - - - - - - - - -95

    2. Cash seizures: highway/airport/passenger train stops- - - - - 96

    3. Adverse decisions on cash seizures- - - - - - - - - - 100

TEXT OF PART I  - pages 101-154 - in PDF format

  
    4. Dog sniffs- - - - - - - - - - 101

    5. Bank accounts- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 101

    6. Luxury items/residences-lack of legitimate income- - - - - -102

    7. Property intended to be used to buy drugs- - - - - - - -103

C. Negating a "legitimate source" defense- - - - - - - - - - 103

    1. The fact that the third party used clean money to acquire his or her interest does not affect the forfeitability of the property- - - - - - - - - - - 103

    2. Under pre-CAFRA law, evidence of possible legitimate sources of income was insufficient toestablish legitimate source defense without records- - - - - 103

    3. Same is true under the post-CAFRA preponderance of the evidence standard- - - -103

    4. Cross-examination - - - - - - - - - 104

D. Facilitating property-the substantial connection test- - - - - - 104

    1. The substantial connection test was the rule in most circuits before CAFRA - - - - 104

    2. The substantial connection requirement does not apply in proceeds cases- - - - -105

    3. Substantial connection between property and drug trafficking- - - - - - - - 105

    4. In real property cases, forfeiture applies to the entire tract- - - - - - - - - 107

    5. Probable cause for seizure of facilitating property- - - - - - 107

E. Money laundering cases- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -107

    1. What constitutes property "involved in" the money laundering offense- - - - 107

    2. Mens rea for money laundering- - - - - - - - - - - 107

    3. Black market dollars derived from illegal activity are subject to forfeiture even if the claimant acquired them in exchange for clean money - - - - - 108

F. Elements of the offense- - - - - - - - - - - - - 108

G. Summary judgment on the forfeitability issue- - - - - - - - -108

    1. At the summary judgment stage, forfeitability is determined on the basis of all of the facts - - -108

    2. Pre-CAFRA - - - - - - - - - - 108

    3. Post-CAFRA - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - 109

    4. Implausible explanation is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment- - - - 110

    5. Reliance on conviction to establish forfeitability - - - - - 111

    6. Summary judgment where mental intent is an issue- - - - - - - - - 111

    7. Summary judgment where there is a para11el criminal case- - - - - - - 112

    8. Summary judgment where the Fifth Amendment is asserted- - - - - - - 112

    9. Summary judgment for the claimant- - - - - - - - 112

XII. Tracing- - - - - - - - - - - - - 112

A. Forfeiture applies to funds, not to bank accounts- - - - - - - -112

B. Forfeiture of entire account may be based on circumstantial evidence- - - - - - - - 113

C. Government must trace money to the offense giving rise to forfeiture- - - - - - - - 113

D. Tracing the seized property to criminal activity is part of the Government's burden- - - 113

E. Examples of property found traceable to the offense- - - - - 114

F. Application of tracing rules- - - - - - - - - - - - - -115

    1. Proceeds forfeitures are limited to the portion traceable- - - - - - - - 115

    2. Insurance proceeds- - - - - - - - - - - - - -115

    3. Tracing is part of the Government's burden- - - - - - - -115

    4. Voigt and cases distinguishing Voigt- - - - - - - - 115

G. Fungible property/section 984 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 116

    1. Government need not satisfy tracing requirement in cases where a bank account is seized within 1 year of date when the offense occurred- - - - - - - 116

    2. The 1-year limitations period- - - - - - - - - - - 117

    3. Section 984 is not a separate cause of action- - - - - - 117

    4. Section 984 only applies if the Government cannot trace the property directly- - - - - - - 118

    5. Section 984 may be invoked even if the Government knows where the directly forfeitable property has gone- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -118

    6. Interbank account exception- - - - - - - - - - 119

    7. Section 984 does not apply retroactively- - - - - - - 119

    8. The Third Circuit has suggested that all money is fungible in any event - - - - 120

H. Foreign deposits/correspondent accounts- - - - - - - - - - 120

XIII. Standing and Ownership- - - - - - - - - - - - - 120

A. Standing and ownership are different concepts- - - - - - - .120

    1. Standing is a threshold question in every civil forfeiture case- - - - - - - - 120

    2. Standing requires only a "colorable interest" in the property- - - - - - - 120

    3. Ownership is an element of the claimant's affirmative defense- - - - - - - - 121

    4. A person may have standing yet fail to satisfy the ownership element- - - - - - 122

    5. Standing is sufficient to challenge forfeitability - - - - - - - 123

    2. Simple possession is sufficient, if accompanied by an explanation- - - - - 124

    3. Naked possession by unknowing custodian is not sufficient for standing- - - - 125

    4. Person whose name is on the title has standing- - - - - - - 125

    5. Standing of lienholder- - - - - - - - - - - - - 126

    6. Standing to contest forfeiture of bank accounts- - - - - - -126

    7. Standing of bailee - - - - - - - - - - - - - 127

    8. Standing of bailor - - - - - - - - - - - - - 127

    9. Standing of decedent's estate- - - - - - - - - - 128

    10. Potential injuries may be sufficient for standing- - - - - - 128

    11. Standing to challenge forfeiture of corporate assets- - - - - 129

    12. Alter ego corporation and "sham" trust lack standing- - - - - 129

    13. Standing of trust beneficiaries- - - - - - - - - - - 129

    14. Unsecured creditors lack standing- - - - - - - - - - 130

    15. Enforcement of the standing requirements may preclude victims- - - - - - - 130

    16. Criminal defendant may be barred- - - - - - - - - -130

C. Procedure for determining standing- - - - - - - - - - - 130

    1. Standing is a threshold question for the court- - - - - - - 130

    2. Failure to establish standing may result in summary judgment- - - - - - 131

    3. Claimant's prior statements denying ownership may be used to rebut standing- - 132

    4. Claimant must have standing as to each asset- - - - - - - 132

D. An owner must have a legal interest in the property- - - - - - - 132

    1. The nature of the claimant's interest is determined by state law- - - - - - 132

    2. Federal law determines whether claimant's interest is sufficient- - - - - - 134

    3. The claimant must exercise dominion and control- - - - - -134

    4. Sham transaction does not convey ownership- - - - - - - 136

    5. Unsecured creditors are not owners- - - - - - - - 136

    6. Special rule for correspondent bank accounts- - - - - - -138

E. Temporal requirement/relation back doctrine- - - - - - - - - 138

    1. Pre-CAFRA, Government could not use relation back doctrine- - - - - - 138

    2. Post-CAFRA, sections 983(d)(2) and (3) divide claimants into two categories- - - 139

XIV. The Innocent Owner Defense- - - - - - - - - - - - 139

A. Innocent owner defense is not constitutionally required- - - - - - 139

    1. Pre-CAFRA cases- - - - - - - - - - - - - 139

    2. CAFRA carve-out- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 140

    3. Innocent owner defense does not apply to contraband- - - - - 140

B. Burden of proof on innocent owner defense- - - - - - - - - -140

    1. Burden shifts to claimant to establish innocent owner defense by preponderance of the evidence- - - - - - - - - - - 140

    2. Burden shifting is not unconstitutional- - - - - - - - -.141

C. Innocent owner defense has two elements- - - - - - - - - - 141

D. Ownership - - - - - - - - - - - - 141

E. Innocence-interests in existence when the crime occurred- - - - - -141

    1. The test is disjunctive - - - - - - - - - - - - - 141

    2. Knowledge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 142

    3. Employee's knowledge may be imputed to the corporation- - - - - - 143

    4. Knowledge equates with willful blindness- - - - - - - - 144

    5. Definition of "willful blindness" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 145

    6. The "all reasonable steps" test- - - - - - - - - - - 145

F. After-acquired interests- - - - - - - - - - 148

    1. Under pre-CAFRA law, there was no distinction between preexisting and after-acquired interests- - - - - - - - - - - 148

    2. Some courts assessed the state of mind at the time the owner acquired the property - - 148

    4. CAFRA resolves both problems- - - - - - - - - 149

    5. A person who buys real property on which a lis pendens has been filed is not a bona fide purchaser- - - - - - - - - - - - 150

    7. Bona fide purchaser requirement in black market cases- - - - - - - - 150

G. Summary judgment on the innocent owner defense- - - - - - 151

    1. Where claimant offers no evidence to support any of his or her affirmative defenses- - - - 151

    2. Government entitled to summary judgment if claimant is not an owner- - - - - 151

    3. Claimant must do more than make general denials- - - - - -151

    4. When mental state of claimant is at issue- - - - - - - - 152

    5. Government is entitled to summary judgment where denial of knowledge is totally inconsistent with uncontested facts- - - - - - - - - 153

    6. Summary judgment on the failure to take all reasonable steps- - - - - - - - 153

    7. Court does not reach innocent owner issue on motion for summary judgment until Government has established the forfeitabity - - - - - - - - - - - - 154

    8. Summary judgment for the claimant- - - - - - - - 154

H. Retroactive application of section 983(d) - - - - - - - - - - 154

XV. Trial Procedure - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 154

A. Jury trial- - - - - - - - - - - - 154

B. Burden of proof - - - - - - - - - - - -154

    1. Post-CAFRA cases- - - - - - - - - - - - - -155

    2. Pre-CAFRA cases- - - - - - - - - - - - - -155

    3. CAFRA carve-out- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 155

C. Jury instructions- - - - - - - - - - - 156

D. Bifurcation of trial - - - - - - - - - - -156

    1. Pre-CAFRA, bifurcation of the trial was required- - - - - - 156

E. Peremptory challenges- - - - - - - - - - - - - 156

F. Joinder and severance- - - - - - - - - - 156

    1. Separate trials not required where multiple claimants' interests are not hostile- - 156

    2. In rem actions against separate bank accounts should be filed as separate actions- - - 157

G. Evidence - - - - - - - - - - - - . 157

H. Invoking the Fifth Amendment- - - - - - - - - - - - - 157

    1. Court may draw adverse inference from invocation of the Fifth Amendment- - - - 157

    2. Invoking the Fifth Amendment does not relieve claimant of burden of proof - - - -158

I. Confrontation Clause- - - - - - - - - - 158

XVI. Post-Trial and Other Issues- - - - - - - - - - . 158

A. Stay pending appeal- - - - - - - - - - 158

    1. 28 U.S.C. § 1355(c) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -158

    2. Cases holding that stays pending appeal of forfeitures are not mandatory- - - - - 159

B. Certificate of reasonable cause- - - - - - - - - - - 159

C. Post-trial motion for return of forfeited property- - - - - - - - 159

    1. Motion for the return of seized property is barred- - - - - - 159

    2. Rule 60(b) motions- - - - - - - - - - - - -160

    3. Rule 41(e) motions- - - - - - - - - - - - 160

D. Division of jointly held property- - - - - - - - - - - - 160

E. Prejudgment interest- - - - - - - - - - 161

    1. Section 2465(b) provides for the payment of prejudgment interest- - - - - 161

    2. Pre-CAFRA, the circuits were split- - - - - - - - 161

F. Abatement - - - - - - - - - - - - - 162

G. Attorney's fees- - - - - - - - - - - - 162

    1. EAJA fees- - - - - - - - - - -162

    2. Section 2465(b) - - - - - - - - - -164

    3. Calculating the amount of the fee award- - - - - - - 165

H. Actions against the Government- - - - - - - - - - - 165

    1. Federal Tort Claims Act- - - - - - - - - - - 165

    2. Replevin (18 U.S.C. §981(c ) - - - - - - - - - - - 165

I. Substitute res- - - - - - - - - - - 165

XVII. Parallel Civil Forfeiture and Criminal Prosecution- - - - - - - - - -. 165

A. The Government is entitled to file parallel civil forfeiture- - - - - - - - - 165

    1. Parallel case may be filed while criminal case is pending- - - - - - - - - 165

    2. Civil forfeiture necessary where wrongdoer has died- - - - - 166

B. Civil forfeiture does not implicate double jeopardy- - - - - - - 166

C. No criminal conviction required- - - - - - - - - - - - 167

D. Collateral estoppel/res judicata- - - - - - - - - 168

    1. Collateral estoppel bars parties from relitigating, in civil proceeding- - - - - -168

    2. Collateral estoppel does not apply to issues determined at a sentencing hearing in a criminal case - - - - - - - - - 169

    3. Res judicata does not bar civil forfeiture- - - - - - - - 169

E. Effect of civil forfeiture on criminal case- - - - - - - - - - 169

    1. Civil forfeiture is not a basis for downward departure- - - - - 169

    2. Assistance in civil forfeiture is not "substantial assistance" - - - - - - - 169

    3. Voluntary surrender of meritorious defense- - - - - - 170

    4. Relationship of forfeiture and criminal fine- - - - - - 170

    5. Court may not grant motion for return of seized property in criminal case- - - 170

    6. Appeal in one case does not affect jurisdiction of the district court- - - - - 170

    7. Civil forfeiture may follow criminal case in which defendant was ordered to pay restitution- - - - 170

F. Use of grand jury information- - - - - - - - - - - 170

XVIII. Application of CAFRA

A. Application to pending cases- - - - - - - - - - - - 171

    1. CAFRA does not apply to cases pending on appeal- - - - - - - - - 171

    2. Cases on remand- - - - - - - - - - - - - 171

    3. CAFRA only applies to forfeiture cases commenced on or after August 23, 2000 - - -172

    4. Application of section 983(e) to administrative forfeiture cases commenced before August 23, 2000 - - - - - - - - - - -174

    5. Amended complaints filed after August 23,2000 - - - - - - 174

    6. Sixth Circuit cases- - - - - - - - - - - - -174

B. Retroactivity - - - - - - - - - - - - -175

    1. Forfeiture of all proceeds, under section 981(a)(1)(C), applies retroactively- - - - 175

    2. Civil forfeiture statutes are not penal in nature- - - - - - - 175

    3. Money laundering forfeitures- - - - - - - - - - -. 175

    4. FIRREA forfeitures- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 175

C. Legislative history- - - - - - - - - - - 176

D. Rules of statutory interpretation- - - - - - - - - - - - 176

XIX. Forfeiture and Restitution- - - - - - - - - - - - - 176

XX. Policy Directives- - - - - - - - - - - 176

A. Policies create no enforceable rights- - - - - - - - -. 176

XXI. Forfeiture and Taxes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 177

B. Government is not liable for state taxes that accrue on forfeited property- - - - - - - 177

C. Forfeiture Fund versus IRS - - - - - - - - - .177

XXII. Forfeiture and Bankruptcy- - - - - - - - - - - - 178

A. Courts are divided as to whether property subject to forfeiture is part of the bankruptcy estate- 178

    1. "Automatic stay" does not bar forfeiture proceedings- - - - - - - - 178

    2. Automatic stay applies to civil forfeiture proceedings- - - - - - - - 178

B. Forfeitures that predate bankruptcy filing- - - - - - - - 178

C. Settlement with bankruptcy trustee- - - - - - - - - - 179

XXIII. Obtaining Financial Records- - - - - - - - - - - 179

A. Right to Financial Privacy Act- - - - - - - - - - - - 179

B. Use of administrative subpoena- - - - - - - - - - - 179

C. Mutual legal assistance- - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 179

XXIV. Constitutional Issues - - - - - - - - - - - - - 179

A. Right to counsel- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 179

B. Takings Clause- - - - - - - - - - - 179

C. Supremacy Clause - - - - - - - - - 180

D. Vagueness- - - - - - - - - - - - 180

XXV. Substantive Forfeiture Statutes - - - - - - - - - - 181

A. Proceeds and "traceable" property- - - - - - - - - - - - 181

    1. Section 981(a)(2)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 181

    2. Property that appreciates in value- - - - - - - - - - 181

    3. Insurance proceeds and other traceable property - - - - - - 181

    4. Proceeds of a false loan or bank fraud- - - - - - - - -181

    5. Interest- - - - - - - - - - - - 182

B. Facilitating real property (21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) - - - - - - - - 182

C. Firearms - - - - - - 183

    1. 120-day rule - - - - - - 183

    2. Application of section 924(d) - - - - - - 183

D. Vehicles - - - - - - 184

E. FIRREA - - - - - - 184

F. Alien smuggling - - - - - - 184

G. Customs offenses - - - - - - 185

H. Gambling - - - - - - 185

I. IEEPA - - - - - - - 185

J. Foreign tax offenses- - - - - - - - 185

K. Intangible property- - - - - - - - - 186

XXVI. When Forfeiture Is Unnecessary- - - - - - - 186

A. Proceeds - - - - - - 186

B. Restitution - - - - - - 186

C. Sting money/bribe money - - - - - - 186

D. Instrumentalities - - - - - - 187

E. Evidence in the criminal case- - - - - - - - 187

F. Firearms - - - - - - 187

    1. The Fifth Circuit holds that the firearm must be forfeited - - - - - - 187

G. Drug forfeitures/contraband- - - - - - - - 188

H. Non-innocent owner - - - - - - 188

I. Contraband - - - - - - 188

J. Laches - - - - - - 189

XXVII. Forfeiture and Retirement Plans - - - - - - 189

XXVIII. International Forfeitures- - - - - - - - - 189

A. Enforcement of foreign judgments and restraining orders- - - - - - - - 189

B. Abstention doctrine- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 189

C. Section 2314 - - - - - - - - - - - 189

GO ON to Table of Contents for Part II

hypertext version (c) 2006 Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation