Victims Claiming Property Seized for Forfeiture

Victims with a sufficient ownership or cognizable property interest have standing in a civil asset forfeiture. The sufficiency of the claim is determined by applying both constitutional and statutory standards, with a particular focus on the nature, timing, and legal recognition of the victim’s interest in the property.

Case law consistently holds that only those with a specific, legally recognized interest in the property have standing to contest forfeiture. General creditors and victims without such an interest must seek relief through administrative processes. Courts have rejected attempts by victims to assert standing based solely on their status as victims or holders of money judgments, unless those judgments have been perfected as liens on the property prior to seizure.

Attorneys for Victims Claiming Property Seized for Forfeiture

We can help you determine whether you can demonstrate a specific, legally cognizable interest in the property. If you have an ownership interest, a perfected lien, a constructive trust, or other recognized property interest, we can help you file a claim to contest the forfeiture.

The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm understand how to conduct fact-intensive evaluations while analyzing state law, timing of the interest, and compliance with procedural requirements. Where standing is lacking, we can explain the administrative remission process.

Call 813-250-0500.

Article III Standing for Victims

As a threshold matter, courts require that a claimant demonstrate Article III standing, which means showing a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the forfeiture and redressable by a favorable decision. In forfeiture proceedings, this showing typically requires a colorable legal interest in the specific property at issue, not merely a general claim as a victim or unsecured creditor.

Courts look for evidence of a direct, legally protected interest—such as ownership, a lien, a leasehold, or a constructive trust—rather than a generalized injury from the underlying offense.

Statutory Standing for Vicitms

Statutory standing is governed by the civil forfeiture statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(6), which defines “owner” as a person with an ownership interest in the specific property sought to be forfeited, including leaseholds, liens, mortgages, recorded security interests, or valid assignments of an ownership interest. The statute expressly excludes general unsecured creditors, nominees who exercise no dominion or control, and certain bailees unless the bailor is identified and the bailee shows a legitimate interest.

Courts scrutinize the nature of the victim’s interest to determine if it fits within these statutory categories. For example, a victim who is merely an unsecured creditor or who has a general claim against the estate of the wrongdoer will not have standing; only those with a specific, legally cognizable interest in the property itself—such as a perfected lien, a constructive trust recognized under state law, or a direct ownership interest—may contest forfeiture.

Timing and Acquisition of the Victim’s Interest

The timing of the victim’s acquisition of the interest might be critical to determing standing. If the interest was acquired after the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture, the claimant must show that they were a bona fide purchaser for value and did not know or have reason to know that the property was subject to forfeiture. Interests acquired after the government’s lis pendens or after public notice of forfeiture are generally not protected unless the claimant meets the statutory requirements for innocent ownership.

When the Victim has a Constructive Trust

Courts often look to state law to determine whether a victim’s interest is legally cognizable. For example, if state law recognizes a constructive trust in favor of fraud victims, and the property at issue is traceable to the victim’s funds, courts may find standing. However, this is a narrow exception and does not apply to all victims; the claimant must prove the existence of the constructive trust and a direct connection to the property.

Remission and Mitigation Process for Victims

If a victim lacks a sufficient property interest for standing in the judicial forfeiture action, their remedy is generally through the administrative remission or mitigation process administered by the Attorney General. Congress has left the restoration of forfeited assets to crime victims to the discretion of the Attorney General, and courts have consistently held that this process—not direct intervention in the forfeiture action—is the appropriate avenue for general victims and unsecured creditors.

This article was last updated on Friday, September 12, 2025.