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
The Government Took Nearly $1.4 Million From a Kentucky Business and Wants to Keep It Forever. It Still Won’t Say Why.
The Case If you have ever pulled cash from an ATM or spent U.S. dollars in Mexico, you may have crossed paths with Steven Bailey’s business without knowing it. His company,…
Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
Phoenix-area small business files federal lawsuit after federal agents raid business, seize money
The Case On the morning of Feb. 25, 2025, Mario Ayala was in Mexico visiting his dying father. Unfortunately, Mario had to cut that trip short. The reason? Federal agents…
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.
In The News
Liberty & Law Article
