Administrative forfeiture process reforms:

• government must commence administrative forfeiture proceedings by giving notice within 60 days of seizure of property (currently the government has no deadline for commencing the process, other than for vehicles seized in drug-related forfeiture cases)  new §981(j)(1)(A)
• a person who is entitled to notice, and who is not given notice is entitled to void the forfeiture with prejudice (meaning the government can't proceed with forfeiture at all) unless the government shows good cause (current case law allows a person who does not receive notice to move to vacate the administrative forfeiture, but the government can start the process all over unless they have missed their 5 year statute of limitations)  new §981(j)(1)(B)
• lengthens the period of time for filing a claim to stop the administrative forfeiture - to 30 days (currenly DEA only allows 20 days)  new §981(j)(2)(A-C)
• eliminates the cost bond (currently, claimant must post cost bond of 10% of the value of the property in order to have any judicial remedies) new §981(j)(2)(F)

• government must file judicial forfeiture action within 60 days of filing of administrative forfeiture claim (currently the government has no deadline for filing the judicial forfeiture complaint, except where property is a vehicle seized in a drug-related case) new §981(j)(2)(D-E)
• lengthens claimant's time for filing a verified claim in the judicial forfeiture proceeding to 30 days after service of complaint, with answer due 20 days after filing of verified claim (currently claimant has 10 days to file verified claim, with answer due 20 days after that) new §981(j)(3)
• provides for the appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act for indigent claimants (currently there is no right to counsel for indigents, and most are forced to represent themselves or give up; most pro se litigants lose)  new §981(j)(4)
• puts burden of proof on the government to prove property is forfeitable by clear and convincing evidence (current burden of proof is on property owner by preponderance of evidence)  new §981(j)(5)
• creates uniform innocent owner defense for owner who either did not know of illegal activity subjecting property to forfeiture, or after learning of the misconduct, "did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property." (current innocent owner defense is spotty, doesn't exist in some statutes, and is vague in others; some courts interpret statutory defense to require claimant to show they didn't know of or consent to the illegal use) new §981(j)(6)(A-B)
• allows people who acquire their interest in the property after the illegal act to assert the innocent owner defense if they are bona fide purchaser for value or if they inherited the property if they can show that at the time they received their interest they were reasonably without cause to believe the property was subject to forfeiture (law is unclear on this now, and courts have gone different ways)  new §981(j)(6)(C)
• protects innocent spouses and minor children from forfeiture of their primary residence if they acquired their interest in the property by divorce, operation of law, or inheritance - if they can show that at the time they received their interest they were reasonably without cause to believe the property was forfeitable (currently innocent spouses and children often have no innocent owner defense)  new §981(j)(6)(D)
• clarifies the definition of "did all that reasonably could be expected..."  - claimant's cooperation with law enforcement officials may be used to show this but is not mandatory, and claimant is not expected to take steps he reasonably believes would endanger himself or others (current case law is in conflict on this issue)  new §981(j)(7)
• defines "owner" to include holder of lease, "lien, mortgage, recorded security device, or valid assignment of an ownership interest" but not an unsecured creditor, bailee (unless the bailee has a colorable interest in the property) or a straw owner. (current case law is in conflict on this issue)  new §981(j)(8)(2)
• allows the property to be released to the claimant pending the hearing in cases of substantial hardship (except for real estate, this is not allowed under current law)  new §981(k)

• waives sovereign immunity for suit under Federal Tort Claims Act for damages to property while seized, if claimant prevails in forfeiture action (currently a claimant can't sue the US for damages to their property while seized - even if it is completely destroyed!)  Section 3: amends 28 U.S.C. §2680(c)
• requires government to pay successful claimant pre-judgment interest on seized currency, negotiable instruments or proceeds of interlocutory sale (currently case law is muddy on this issue)  Section 4: amends 28 U.S.C. §2465