Innocent Owner in a Civil Asset Forfeiture Case

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.

With respect to a property interest acquired after the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture has taken place, [*9] the term “innocent owner” means a person who, at the time that person acquired the interest in the property–

(i) was a bona fide purchaser or seller for value (including a purchaser or seller of goods or services for value); and

(ii) 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.”

Attorney for the Innocent Owner Defense in Forfeiture Cases

The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm represent innocent owners in both civil and criminal asset forfeiture cases. We can help you file a claim for court action in a civil asset forfeiture case or an ancillary claim in a criminal asset forfeiture case.

We represent innocent owners, owner victims, lien holders, spouses, creditors, and others contesting an asset forfeiture proceeding.

Call 813-250-0500.

Innocent Owner Defense on the Initial Probable Cause Determination

Whether the claimant is an innocent owner is not always relevant to the issues initially presented after the seizure. “Since it is not a person that is proceeded against, it does not matter if the wrongdoer whose conduct forms the predicate for the forfeiture action was ever charged, convicted, or even acquitted of misconduct.” United States v. $399, 101.96 more or less, in U.S. Currency, No. SA-11-CV-731-XR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108393, 2013 WL 3994632, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2013).

Section 981 does not necessarily restrict the Government from seizing property subject to forfeiture to which someone may later claim ownership and assert a defense under 18 U.S.C. § 983 in a civil forfeiture action.

A claim that an entity is an innocent owner does not necessarily negate the existence of probable cause to seize money collected as part of a money laundering or illegal money transmitting business offense. United States v. One 1981 Datsun 280ZX VIN: JN1HZ04S4BX407742, 644 F. Supp. 1280, 1285 (E.D. Pa. 1986).

Article III Standing Required for an Innocent Owner Defense

In United States v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., 166 F.3d 522, 526 (2d Cir. 1999), the court found that before a claimant can be heard to contest a civil forfeiture claim, he must demonstrate both Article III and statutory standing. The court in Cambio Exacto required claimants to demonstrate both statutory standing “governing their claims” and Article III standing “as required for any action brought in federal court.” Id.

Section 983(d)(1) creates no exception for persons claiming to be “innocent owners.” Instead, it requires that a person contesting forfeiture on the grounds of innocent ownership “shall have the burden of proving that [he] is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(1).

The innocent-owner claimant’s obligation includes a requirement to demonstrate standing to be heard. “Establishing standing in the context of a forfeiture action before considering the merits of a motion to dismiss simply makes sense: the defendant in such an action is the res, not the claimant. Without standing, the claimant lacks the right to bring any motion, regardless of the basis.” United States v. Vazquez-Alvarez, 760 F.3d 193, 197 (2d Cir. 2014).9

The requirement to demonstrate Article III standing before being heard on an innocent-owner challenge to forfeiture is hardly onerous: a person need show only a “facially colorable interest” in the property at issue; whether he “ultimately proves the existence of that interest” is a question for a later stage in the proceedings. United States v. $557,933.89, More or Less, in U.S. Funds, 287 F.3d 66, 79 & n.10 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In Torres v. $36,256.80 U.S. Currency, 25 F.3d 1154, 1158 (2d Cir. 1994), “an allegation of ownership and some evidence of ownership are together sufficient to establish [constitutional] standing to contest a civil forfeiture.”

To the extent the claimant was a “mere custodian” of seized monies belonging to others, however, the claimant might lack constitutional standing to challenge the forfeiture of those monies. For example, in United States v. Cambio Exacto, 166 F.3d at 527, the court found that the “mere custodian” of res, with only a “naked claim of possession,” cannot demonstrate Article III standing.

To establish statutory standing (that is, a cause of action), the Claimant must satisfy the procedures set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 983(a) and Supp. Rule G. Those procedures require a person asserting an interest in property that is the subject of a civil forfeiture complaint to file a verified claim “not later than 30 days” after service of the government’s complaint or publication of notice of the filing of that complaint. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A).

The claimant might seek leave from the district court to file a claim nunc pro tunc, if done while in opposing the government’s motion for a default judgment. In United States v. Starling, 76 F.4th at 101 n.4, the court found that the pro se putative claimant “could be granted leave to file claims nunc pro tunc” prior to “dispositive motions which follow from establishing the initial claim.”

The advisory committee’s note to the 2006 amendments of Supp. Rule G(8)(c)(ii) provide: “A claimant who lacks standing is not entitled to challenge the forfeiture on the merits.”

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 705, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 186 L. Ed. 2d 768 (2013), the court found “standing must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance.” (internal quotation marks omitted).

In United States v. Yalincak, 30 F.4th 115, 131 (2d Cir. 2022), the court held that in the criminal restitution context, that defendant lacks standing to challenge district court reasoning absent showing of “concrete stake in the issues raised.

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