In 2017, the Department of Justice revived a controversial federal forfeiture program the previous administration had sharply curtailed. In defense of these “adoptive forfeitures” or “adoptions,” as well as of civil forfeiture in general, the DOJ claims that 1) civil forfeiture overwhelmingly targets criminals, not innocents, and is thus a valuable crime-fighting tool and 2) the DOJ’s forfeiture program has new “safeguards” in place to ensure adoptions do not cause innocent people to unjustly lose their property. Using the DOJ’s own data—which only partly illuminate the black box that is the federal forfeiture process—this paper finds reason to doubt these claims. Specifically, it finds that the DOJ cannot substantiate its claim that civil forfeiture fights crime. It also concludes that the DOJ’s new safeguards are unlikely to provide meaningful protection to innocent property owners.
Related Cases
Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
Family Jewelry Business Fights Back to End Predatory Civil Forfeitures at Indianapolis FedEx Hub
Henry and Minh Cheng, who run a wholesale jewelry business, are fighting Indiana to keep money a customer sent them through FedEx. Indiana police seized the money and prosecutors are trying to take it through civil forfeiture without saying what the couple did wrong.
Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
When the government seizes property from people without justification, and they have to spend money to get their property back, they deserve to be made whole.
Brian Moore fought to get his property back from the federal government and he won. In 2021, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized $8,500 in cash from him at Atlanta’s airport…
Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
The FBI Hasn’t Said What This Couple Did Wrong, But Is Taking Their Savings Anyway
Linda Martin's home savings were seized by the FBI. She received a confusing forfeiture notice that didn't clearly say what she did wrong for the government to want to take her money.
In The News
Liberty & Law Article