Home   »   Civil Asset Forfeiture

Civil Asset Forfeiture

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows law enforcement agencies to seize assets and property believed to be connected to criminal activity, even if the property owner has not been charged with or convicted of a crime. Property seized for being connected to criminal activity includes cash, cryptocurrency, precious metals, jewelry, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and real estate.

Federal civil asset forfeiture proceedings were initially established under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 for drug-related crimes. Later, the federal legislature expanded civil asset forfeiture to include a broader range of criminal activities under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act of 1970.

In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) reforms, which shifted the burden of proof to the government to prove the property’s connection to criminal activity by a preponderance of the evidence and allowed property owners to recover attorney’s fees in certain cases.

State laws regarding civil asset forfeiture vary significantly. In Florida, property can be seized for civil asset forfeiture even if no one is arrested for any crime. Civil asset forfeiture cases fall under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (FCFA).

Attorney for Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceedings

If the government has seized your property, the window to file a claim and take action to contest the legality of the forfeiture action is exceptionally short. Strict deadlines apply.

Contact the experienced civil asset forfeiture attorneys at Sammis Law Firm to discuss your defense before the deadline for filing a verified claim, or a petition for remission or mitigation expires.

Call (813) 250-0500.

Burden of Proof in Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceedings

In a civil forfeiture case, “the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture,” i.e., that the property is tied to criminal wrongdoing. § 983(c)(1).

Placing this burden on the government was an important change that Congress made in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), Pub. L. No. 106-185, § 2(a), 114 Stat. 202, 205 (2000).

Prior to CAFRA, the claimant had to prove that the property was not subject to forfeiture, had prompted “widespread criticism,” United States v. $80,180.00 in U.S. Currency, 303 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2002), based on perceived unfairness to persons from whom the government had seized property, see United States v. Real Prop. in Section 9, 241 F.3d 796, 799 (6th Cir. 2001).

Congress’s legislative fix in CAFRA also resonates with broader due process concerns that have been raised about the civil forfeiture process. See Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377, 393-403, 144 S. Ct. 1142, 218 L. Ed. 2d 372 (2024) (Gorsuch, J., joined by Thomas, J., concurring); id. at 403-08, 415 (Sotomayor, J., joined by Kagan and Jackson, JJ., dissenting).

Statutory Authority for Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture

Federal agencies like the FBI, DEA, and IRS use several “specified unlawful activities” (SUAs) to justify civil seizures under 18 U.S.C. § 981. Common underlying offenses include:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft & Fraud) –
    • The government can seize assets if they believe property was used to produce, transfer, or possess false identification documents without lawful authority. This frequently includes high-end electronics, vehicles, or bank accounts allegedly funded by identity theft schemes.
    • 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1) makes it a crime, inter alia, to knowingly and without lawful authority produce an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document.
    • 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) makes it a crime, inter alia, to knowingly transfer, possess, or use, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law.
    • The term “means of identification” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(7) and includes, inter alia, name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse) –
    • Forfeiture is authorized for property obtained through unauthorized access to a “protected computer” that requires the accused “exceeded authorized access” as opposed to simply using authorized access for an improper purpose.
    • 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) makes it a crime, inter alia, to intentionally access a computer without authorization and thereby obtain information from any protected computer.
    • 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) makes it a crime, inter alia, to knowingly and with intent to defraud, access a protected computer without authorization, and by means of such conduct further the intended fraud and obtain anything of value.
    • The term “protected computer” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) and includes, inter alia, a computer used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.
    • In Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648, 1652 (2021), the court defined protected computer under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B) to include “at a minimum . . . all computers that connect to the Internet”).
    • 18 U.S.C. § 371 prohibits a conspiracy to commit an offense or to defraud the United States, including violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) and 1030(a)(2).
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud) –
    • The “catch-all” for many federal seizures includes any money or property obtained through a scheme to defraud involving wire communications (including internet transfers and emails) is subject to forfeiture.
    • 18 U.S.C. § 1343 makes it a crime for anyone, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, to transmit or cause to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice.
    • 18 U.S.C. § 1349 prohibits the attempt or conspiracy of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Money Laundering) – The government often pursues “promotional” or “concealment” money laundering charges to seize entire businesses or complex investment portfolios. We often defend these by challenging the government’s definition of “proceeds” versus “gross receipts.”
    • 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it a crime to conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction, knowing that the property involved in the transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity. This offense is sometimes referred to as promotional money laundering.
    • 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) makes it a crime to conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction, knowing that the property involved in the transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity. This offense is sometimes referred to as concealment money laundering.
    • The term “specified unlawful activity” is defined in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(c)(7) and 1961(1).
    • 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) criminalizes a conspiracy to violate § 1956.

What Procedural Rules Apply to Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceedings?

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain a set of supplemental procedures specific to civil forfeiture actions found in Supplemental Rule G in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (Supp. R.).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also themselves apply to civil forfeiture proceedings, “except to the extent that they are inconsistent with the[] Supplemental Rules.” Supp. R. A(2); see also Supp. R. G(1).

For a judgment of forfeiture to be entered, the government must first publish notice of the action within a reasonable time after filing a complaint. Supp. R. G(4)(a)(i). Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(i) also requires the government to “send notice of the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the government.” Id. at G(4)(b)(i).

Direct notice must be sent “no later than 30 days after final publication of newspaper notice or legal notice under Rule G(4)(a) or not later than 60 days after the first day of publication on an official internet government forfeiture site.” See id. at G(4)(b)(i), (5)(a)(ii)(B).

A “claimant who had actual notice of a forfeiture action may not oppose or seek relief from forfeiture because of the government’s failure to send the required notice.” Id. at G(4)(b)(v).  Although serving a warrant of arrest would constitute a written direct notice, the warrant of arrest does not need to be done “as soon as practicable . . . [if] the property is in the government’s possession, custody, or control.” Id. at G(3)(c)(ii)(A).

When the Government Files a Complaint for Forfeiture in the U.S. District Court

The Government commences a civil forfeiture proceeding by filing a complaint in district court. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). Under Supplemental Rule G(2), the government’s complaint must identify the property to be forfeited and provide “detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.”

The government must also provide notice of the action to the public and known potential claimants. Supp. R. G(4); see 18 U.S.C. § 983(a). Any claimant may then intervene to assert a claim to the property. Supp. R. G(5)(a); 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A). A judicial claim must “identify the specific property claimed” and “identify the claimant and state the claimant’s interest in the property.” Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i)(A), (B).

Acivil forfeiture complaint can be supported with an affidavit that details the factual allegations underlying its claims “as long as the affidavit, even if first filed under seal, is made available to the claimant during the pendency of the matter.” $20,000 in U.S. Currency, 589 F. Supp. 3d at 252 (citation omitted). Therefore, “an unsworn declaration has like force and effect to an affidavit if the writer declares in writing under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.” Id. (cleaned up).

Article III Standing to Claimant Property in a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceedings

Although the burden is on the government to establish forfeitability, a civil forfeiture claimant must have Article III standing to seek the property. See United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012).

The claimant carries the burden of establishing standing by a preponderance of the evidence under Supp. R. G(8)(c)(ii)(B). In the civil asset forfeiture proceedings, the claimant can establish standing by “showing that they have ‘a colorable interest in the property,’ which includes an ownership interest or a possessory interest.” $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 637 (quoting United States v. 5208 Los Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 2004)).

The claimant’s interest in the property satisfies the elements of Article III when “an owner or possessor of property that has been seized necessarily suffers an injury that can be redressed at least in part by the return of the seized property.” Id. at 638 (quoting United States v. $515,060.42 in U.S. Currency, 152 F.3d 491, 497 (6th Cir. 1998)).

The claimant’s burden in a civil asset forfeiture proceeding to show standing depends on the stage of the case. The elements of standing in civil forfeiture proceedings require a showing that depends on the nature of the claimed property interest.

For ownership claims at the motion to dismiss stage, the claimant’s unequivocal assertion of an ownership interest in the property is sufficient by itself to establish standing. United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 1994)).

In contrast, a claimant asserting a possessory interest at the motion to dismiss stage offer some factual allegations regarding:

  • how the claimant came to possess the property;
  • the nature of the claimant’s relationship to the property; and
  • how the claimant’s control of the property.’

At summary judgment, a claimant can no longer rely on a bare assertion of an ownership or possessory interest. Instead, the claimant must bring forth other evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment.

For ownership claims, the fact that property was seized from the claimant’s possession may be sufficient evidence, when coupled with a claim of ownership, to establish standing at the summary judgment stage.

For example, in United States v. Funds in the Amount of $239,400, 795 F.3d 639, 642-43 (7th Cir. 2015), the court held that “an assertion of ownership combined with some evidence of ownership,” such as “possession of currency when it was seized,” is “sufficient to establish standing at the summary judgment stage of a civil forfeiture action” (citing $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 640).

For possessory interest claims, establishing standing at summary judgment requires presenting some evidence of how the claimant came to possess the property. See $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 638-39.

The government can investigate a claimant’s asserted standing through the civil discovery process. See $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 642 (noting that the government is entitled to “test the veracity of [a claimant’s] claim of ownership”).

An unequivocal sworn claim of ownership plus possession of the property at the time of seizure is enough, if unchallenged, to survive a summary judgment motion on standing. See $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 639-40. However, the the government is allowed to uncover evidence to show that the claim of ownership is unfounded.

Special Interrogatories Limited to the Claimant’s Relationship to the Property

To uncover evidence to show the claim of ownership is unfounded, the government might use Supplemental Rule G(6), which allows the government to “serve special interrogatories limited to the claimant’s identity and relationship to the defendant property without the court’s leave at any time after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed.” Supp. R. G(6)(a).

The purpose of Supplemental Rule G(6) is “to permit the government to file limited interrogatories at any time after the claim is filed to gather information that bears on the claimant’s standing.” $133,420.00, 672 F.3d at 635 (quoting Supp. R. G advisory committee’s note to 2006 adoption, subdiv. (6)).

Supplemental Rule G(6) interrogatories are not limited in number and can be served without leave of court as soon as a claim is filed. See Supp. R. G advisory committee’s note to 2006 adoption, subdiv. (6). The only permissible topics for Rule G(6) interrogatories are “the claimant’s identity and relationship to the defendant property.” Supp. R. G(6).

Rule G(8)(c) provides that “[a]t any time before trial, the government may move to strike a claim or answer: (A) for failing to comply with Rule G(5) or (6), or (B) because the claimant lacks standing.” Supp. R. G(8)(c)(i).

As a result, the government can move to strike a claim on procedural grounds when it alleges the claimant failed to provide the information required by Rule G(5), which sets forth:

  • the requirements for a claimant’s responsive pleadings, or
  • that the claimant failed to answer interrogatories served under Rule G(6).

The government can also move to strike on the substantive ground that the claimant lacks standing.

Rule G(8) allows the government’s motion to strike to be adjudicated “on the pleadings,” “by summary judgment,” or “after a hearing.” Supp. R. G(8)(c)(ii)(B).

For example, in Stefan D. Cassella, Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States § 9-3(b), at 462 (3d ed. 2022), it was noted that the three ways of adjudicating a motion to strike “correspond to the different stages of the litigation: the pleading stage, the summary judgment stage, and the stage at which the party bearing the burden of proof must meet its burden with admissible evidence in an evidentiary hearing”

Rule G allows the motion to strike to be “decided before any motion by the claimant to dismiss the action.” Supp. R. G(8)(c)(ii)(A).

Additionally, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings. United States v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, 590 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 696, 85 S. Ct. 1246, 14 L. Ed. 2d 170 (1965).

Supplemental Rule G(8)(a) provides that “[i]f the defendant property was seized, a party with standing to contest the lawfulness of the seizure may move to suppress use of the property as evidence.”

The “Innocent Owner” Defense

Pursuant to the civil forfeiture statute, “[a]n innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(1). “The claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d), you can defeat a forfeiture action by proving you are an Innocent Owner. To prevail, you must show:

  • You did not know of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture; or
  • Upon learning of the conduct, you did all that could reasonably be expected to terminate the illegal use of the property.

With respect to a property interest acquired after the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture has taken place, the term “innocent owner” means a person who, at the time that person acquired the interest in the property-

  1. was a bona fide purchaser or seller for value (including a purchaser or seller of goods or services for value); and
  2. did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture.

Id. Section 983 does not define “a bona fide purchaser or seller for value.”

In cases involving cryptocurrency, this often involves proving that your funds were co-mingled in an exchange account and that you had no knowledge of the illicit “source” of other funds in the same pool.

Additional Resources

DOJ Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual (2025 Edition) – View the latest federal policies governing seizures and publication requirements.

Florida Statute § 932.703 – Read the full text of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act regarding the seizure of vessels, vehicles, and aircraft.

This article was last updated on Monday, July 20, 2026.

Our Attorneys

Jason D. Sammis
Leslie M. Sammis

Free Consultation

Submit this form to request a free and confidential consultation with one of our attorneys.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
*All fields required. Submission of an online form does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.
*If your situation is urgent, please call our office at (813) 250-0500.

Asset forfeiture

Civil Asset Forfeiture

Case Results

₿1.19121 BTC

A detective with the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office reportedly obtained a sealed seizure warrant from Circuit Court Judge Joan Anthony. The seizure warrant purportedly allowed the agency to seize 1.19121 BTC from a business owner’s account with Kraken dba Payward Ventures Inc., by ordering... read more »

$159,950

$159,950 Plus Interest Returned by Homeland Security - On September 20, 2019, $181,500.00 in U.S. Currency was seized at the Tampa International Airport before a domestic flight. A federal agent wrote a receipt to our client that said: “MONEY CONTAINED IN 2 BAGS. ESTIMATED... read more »

+$78,000

DEA Seized +$78,000 at the JFK International Airport and Returned All of the Funds: In October 2020, the DEA seized more than $78,000 from a traveler at JFK International Airport. After we were retained, we took steps to preserve any surveillance video of the... read more »

$57,000

CBP Returns $57,000 Seized at the Tampa International Airport: In January 2021, CBP seized $57,000 from a traveler at the Tampa International Airport. Before attempting to board a domestic flight, the traveler was detained and questioned near Gate A. Shortly thereafter, the traveler was... read more »

$500,000 in Bitcoin

Court Orders the Return of $500,000 of Cryptocurrency Seized by a Florida Sheriff’s Office: On June 17, 2025, the Honorable J. Layne Smith, Circuit Judge in Wakulla County, FL, ordered the sheriff’s office to return the seized cryptocurrency, including over $500,000 worth of Bitcoin... read more »

*The case results discussed here do not necssarily reflect the potential outcomes of other cases. The facts and circumstances of each case are unique and must be evaluated and handled on their own merit.

Read more Case Results