Asset Forfeiture
The intention behind asset forfeiture is to stop crime from being profitable by removing the access to criminal resources. Funds from asset forfeiture go to compensate victims and sustain law enforcement operations.
Asset forfeiture proceedings can be civil or criminal. Criminal allegations often allege asset forfeiture remedies as part of the indictment. It doesn’t matter whether the property was transferred to a third party or the asset no longer exists, the government will collect upon the value of the property, which is a commonly litigated issue.
In California, asset forfeiture often takes place in connection with drug related offenses, but white collar crime such as structuring or securities fraud is in fact the largest source of asset forfeiture.
Asset forfeiture is highly controversial because police departments get to keep a fraction of the proceeds of any property they seize. In California, 65% of asset forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement. Some argue that this creates an incentive for police misconduct.
This is compounded by the practice of “equity sharing”, which allows the police to circumvent California law which protects individuals handing seized property over to federal law enforcement agencies. This property is then handled under federal asset forfeiture laws, which are generally harsher than California’s. Local and California state agencies get to keep 80% of the proceeds of the property seized while the federal agencies keep the other 20%.
Asset forfeiture and asset seizure are not the same thing. A seizure is the process whereby the government takes or seizures the property. To forfeit a property is to keep the property and the government must meet certain evidentiary criteria to do this. If any of your property has been seized by the government, we invite you to contact us so that we can investigate if proper procedures have been followed and how to contest the government’s claims.
Asset forfeiture proceedings can be civil or criminal. Criminal allegations often allege asset forfeiture remedies as part of the indictment. It doesn’t matter whether the property was transferred to a third party or the asset no longer exists, the government will collect upon the value of the property, which is a commonly litigated issue.
In California, asset forfeiture often takes place in connection with drug related offenses, but white collar crime such as structuring or securities fraud is in fact the largest source of asset forfeiture.
Asset forfeiture is highly controversial because police departments get to keep a fraction of the proceeds of any property they seize. In California, 65% of asset forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement. Some argue that this creates an incentive for police misconduct.
This is compounded by the practice of “equity sharing”, which allows the police to circumvent California law which protects individuals handing seized property over to federal law enforcement agencies. This property is then handled under federal asset forfeiture laws, which are generally harsher than California’s. Local and California state agencies get to keep 80% of the proceeds of the property seized while the federal agencies keep the other 20%.
Asset forfeiture and asset seizure are not the same thing. A seizure is the process whereby the government takes or seizures the property. To forfeit a property is to keep the property and the government must meet certain evidentiary criteria to do this. If any of your property has been seized by the government, we invite you to contact us so that we can investigate if proper procedures have been followed and how to contest the government’s claims.
Examples of Defense Against Asset Forfeiture
The main line of defense against asset forfeiture is procedural grounds. The
government must follow certain procedures in order to seize assets from citizens. For example, the police may fail to file proper complaints and notice requirements. If we can prove that they have failed these procedures, we can assert that the government infringed upon how constitutional rights so that you can recover your assets.
A classic defense against asset forfeiture is the “innocent owner” defense, which refers to the premise that the defendant did not know that his or her property was being used for illegal activities or, as the recipient of payments. Therefore, the defendant would not have realized that the money was the fruits or proceeds of illegal acts. For example, the defendant might be a landlord who rents a house to tenants that use the property to manufacture drugs. In this case, the defendant honestly had no idea that the property was being used for drugs profiteering and the profits should not be seized from the landlord.
government must follow certain procedures in order to seize assets from citizens. For example, the police may fail to file proper complaints and notice requirements. If we can prove that they have failed these procedures, we can assert that the government infringed upon how constitutional rights so that you can recover your assets.
A classic defense against asset forfeiture is the “innocent owner” defense, which refers to the premise that the defendant did not know that his or her property was being used for illegal activities or, as the recipient of payments. Therefore, the defendant would not have realized that the money was the fruits or proceeds of illegal acts. For example, the defendant might be a landlord who rents a house to tenants that use the property to manufacture drugs. In this case, the defendant honestly had no idea that the property was being used for drugs profiteering and the profits should not be seized from the landlord.